This is what I tell myself every time I find out the hard way what documented parts of Visual Basic didn’t make it into VBScript.

I linked it because the abortion that happened in your article happened because of it:

Cox’s fetus was diagnosed on Nov. 27 with trisomy 18, a genetic abnormality that usually results in miscarriage, stillbirth or death soon after birth.

Nope! You don’t have to pay a cent to the Catholic Church to receive communion.

Wow, you’re completely incapable of basic reasoning.

Why is it relevant? All you’re saying there is literally just “This argument is absurd, it’s vaguely similar to your argument, therefore your argument is absurd.”

You can’t define antidisestablishmentarianism and you’re accusing me of genocide?!

I didn’t know antiwhatever was relevant to the debate. However, the definition of personhood is. And you don’t seem to know what a person is.

I used it colloquially, not professionally, so I’m grabbing the colloquial definition

What did you think of the other colloquial definition I provided for you? Like I said, it seems to line up more with your ideology, it’s even simpler than the one you gave, and it can justify killing anyone you want to!

a person who lives at the expense of another

I don’t know if it bothers you that it uses a word you don’t understand, but hey, up to you.

by your own logic if a fetus is a person then a caterpillar is a butterfly.

Again, you’re arguing from an illogical comparison. You haven’t explained why a fetus isn’t a person, and I have explained why it is. I mean, you’ve called me and my idea stupid, but that doesn’t make your actual judgement of it any clearer. Would you like to tell me so we can discuss it? Or do you just want to keep trying to chisel away at my definition like the world’s worst sculptor? The fact you’re this intent on not directly answering a very relevant question, along with this implication that I’m a bad person for wanting to protect life, are kind of weird, don’t you think?

forcing births through regulation does that.

Pro-life births are higher in Democrat counties, too.

It also tends to produce people who vehemently disagree with and hate you.

It tends to produce people who vehemently agree with me, too, And people who are ambivalent. It really just tends to produce people in general.

Rightly so

That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

you monster

And to think, you’re the one who called me bitter. Projection, thy name is gamermanh.

If the law is being interpreted in court in such a way that the text of the law is being ignored for the sake of scoring more convictions, the state of Texas is begging to be smacked down for doing so. And that smackdown would be perfectly justified. The longer this obviously incorrect interpretation of the law goes unchallenged, the longer it will cause a chilling effect on the medical community that is truly trying to save lives. No, it is not easy to be the tip of the spear, but the state of Texas would owe them a great debt.

That’s irrelevant

If this is irrelevant, so is your caterpillar argument.

mental gymnastics

You can’t even define what a person is and you’re accusing me of mental gymnastics?

Looks more like you hunted a specific definition that specifies cross-species requirements so you could try to well ackshully someone. Failed miserably because it’s easy to google what words mean.

Right, it’s very easy to Google what words mean. That’s why I found three different definitions. Sticking with one you found from a dictionary in the face of three more authoritative sources is odd - especially since the same page cites the Britannica article I linked in the last post. From the same page, this definition sounds like it lines up better with your ideology:

a person who lives at the expense of another

Anyway…

I won’t, because your definition of “people” is faulty

But you can’t explain why…

and I don’t want to say anything you’ll take wrongly.

…or what you think a person is. Would you like to share that, or are you going to continue hiding behind ambiguity because it’s easier to attack something you can actually understand?

It pleases me to know bitter idiots like you are

I suppose that’s one benefit of refusing to explain your arguments. Can’t be stupid if you never say anything at all!

in fact, a dying breed who will be remembered as the stains on history you are 🙂

Ironic, since pro-life people give birth more than pro-choice people.

In one respect, they are similar: a caterpillar is the same species as the butterfly which it becomes, just like fetuses are to humans. In another sense, they are significantly different: no human society regards a butterfly’s life as highly as a born human’s. What moral ramifications are there for stepping on a butterfly that wouldn’t be relevant if it was still a caterpillar, and vice versa? If there are none, then it makes no sense to compare the two on that basis.

1. Here are the Encyclopedia Brittanica and Wikipedia (citing a scientific textbook on archive.org that isn’t currently available, but apparently it was at some point) stating that a parasite is a member of a different species. Since the link won’t work, here is the definition given:

An animal or plant that gets nutrients by living on or in an organism of another species. A complete parasite gets all of its nutrients from the host organism, but a semi-parasite gets only some of its nutrients from the host.

I suspected you wouldn’t settle for a non-medical source for something with a precise technical definition, which is why I used that page.

2. If we’re just throwing whatever labels we want onto words like “parasite,” then what’s stopping us from using the same label for disabled people? Or born babies? Or children who still depend on their parents? Or people who depend on the structure of society in general? Since we’ve already slipped down the genocide slope of deciding that fetuses are parasites, why shouldn’t we go a little further for the good of the human race? They’re a burden anyway, right?

I won’t be mean to you, either, if you admit that killing innocent people is wrong and so is erasing personhood from human beings. If nobody here can admit that, then their disrespect means nothing to me.

I did. Here’s how I replied:

That threat was because she could have sought a C-section. If I’m understanding this page correctly, one’s fertility is reduced by about 13% after a C-section. If I’m not, feel free to show me how I got it wrong. Did that guy ever end up prosecuting anyone involved, though? Why would a judge side with the prosecution after a court literally gave her an order permitting her to do that?

Elaborating further, though the odds of the baby surviving past the first year are only 5-10%, its life should still be preserved if possible. People can and do elect to have surgery despite a low chance of survival.

First off, I’m sorry I mistook you for the other person. I’ll take back those claims.

Second, we are all “clumps of cells.” A fetus just so happens to be a really, really small one at a particular stage of development.
Third, a parasite is, by definition, a member of a different species than its host. Therefore, a fetus is not a parasite.
Fourth, almost everyone on earth depends on other people to continue existing. The ones who don’t are hardcore survivalists. Are they the only ones who get a right to life?

Please see my reply to your other comment. I don’t see how this has anything to do with science and doctors rather than some idiot giving fatally bad legal advice.

That threat was because she could have sought a C-section. If I’m understanding this page correctly, one’s fertility is reduced by about 13% after a C-section. If I’m not, feel free to show me how I got it wrong. Did that guy ever end up prosecuting anyone involved, though? Why would a judge side with the prosecution after a court literally gave her an order permitting her to do that?

How is a fetus not a person? Every human being is a person. Sticking with an extremely broad definition of person is the only way to prevent a slippery slope towards justifying killing people further and further along in development. Trying to call certain human beings not people is a genocidal tactic.

I hope the lawyers who gave the doctor this horrible advice get fired.

The 2017 law allowed abortions in emergencies as defined in Section 171.002, Health and Safety Code. This is what it says:

Medical emergency" means a life-threatening physical condition aggravated by, caused by, or arising from a pregnancy that, as certified by a physician, places the woman in danger of death or a serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function unless an abortion is performed.

“As certified by a physician” means the physician can decide whether this is a life-threatening emergency.

“Life-threatening condition” is a fairly wide umbrella. Given the number of people who die of sepsis every year, that sounds like a life-threatening condition to me. A substantial impairment is defined under federal law. Sepsis would likely also count there, too - it messes you up real badly, after all.

I think the text of the law is quite plain. It’s not a huge reach to imagine that this is yet another terrible instance of a medial error. Hundreds of thousands of people die every year because of them. If you want to talk about enforcement, then we have at least one case of a doctor having a lawsuit against him dismissed after he was accused of providing an abortion. Also, as of 2023, nobody had been arrested for providing an abortion.

I appreciate you trying to see things from my perspective, but the facts of the case seem pretty clear to me. Arguing that this is because of the abortion law doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. If the law says “you can shoot someone if they invade your home,” much the same as this law does, it’s not the legislators’ fault if I freeze up when my home is invaded and die. Medical error, either because of bad legal advice or a poor understanding of medicine, is more reasonable as an explanation.

If you think human life is so worthless, or you’re so intent on debating questions as relevant as “should gnomes be allowed to access the adamantium deposits if all they’ll do is make jewelry with it,” then alright. Have a good day.

Your eagerness to condemn others for not wanting millions of innocent people to die without being able to articulate why killing everyone else is wrong is really quite telling. As is your use of political labels used by dictators to justify killing innocent people​.

So not answering a meaningless and irrelevant question about ethics is less cowardly than not being able to explain why murder is wrong or why some human beings are not people? If I brought up a question about using magic to kill gnomes, would you take it seriously?

In political science, a reactionary or a reactionist is a person who holds political views that favor a return to the status quo ante—the previous political state of society—which the person believes possessed positive characteristics that are absent from contemporary society.

Roe v. Wade was the status quo for decades, and it sounds like you want to return to it. Therefore, if I’m a reactionary, you’re a reactionary too.

Oh, and how did Mao feel about alleged “reactionaries”?

All were publicly humiliated and detained for varying periods, sometimes under very harsh conditions; many were beaten and tortured, and not a few were killed or driven to suicide.

Oh… I certainly don’t want that for anyone.

I should think it’s more cowardly to insult people without explaining why they’re wrong. Are you so deep in you own pro-genocide propaganda that you can’t even articulate why murder is wrong? And if it’s so cowardly to not respond, then why are you not responding to my questions? Are you calling yourself a coward? If so, I mean, you said it, not me.

I have just as much ground to call you a reactionary over your reframing of genocide as “healthcare,” which is apparently such an obvious position that you don’t know how to defend it.