It's actually quite simply. Don't assert things as fact unless or until you have proof or evidence. If you want to call that "the GRUNGEDIVA" way, fine. I certainly didn't invent it, but it is how I try to conduct myself. And yes, it is superior to throwing a tantrum when one is corrected.
Originally Posted by BarlyGurl Alrighty DIVA...YOU are out of line. While no person is forcing YOU to accept that an "ABORTION" is the intentional removal of an unborn baby from the WOMB.
No one is forcing you to accept that, either, or anything else.
Aside from the fact that the intention of the original post was plainly directed at your assertion regarding my position...which IMO most readers would recognize. I will volley your own words back at you...
However, if you wish to communicate in civilized society, you will need to learn to use words as they are defined and accepted by the general public.
WE BEGIN...
the generally accepted definition of "abortion" is "the removal of an embryo or fetus at any stage in the pregnancy." This includes miscarriages and medically-assisted abortions as well as voluntary abortions that are not necessary for the woman's survival.
If the above "definition" were taken strictly... it would also include live-BIRTH, both vaginal and c-cection. Your claim that the above definition is the generally accepted definition is FALSE. Logic follows that otherwise the ABORTION DEBATE would be about people arguing whether they were PRO or ANTI -MISCARRIAGE,C-Section,or BIRTH... which is absurd. The abortion debate is about being PRO or ANTI intentional killing and removal of an unborn baby from the womb. (not to confuse the reader with the added word KILLING, which is omitted above due to the context of referring to the ectopic issue, thus indicated by my emphasis of the word WOMB)
I contend the public, especially the CHRISTIAN PUBLIC generally understands the distictions of: 1) birth comes from the womb- be it live or still, 2)miscarriage being the natural expulsion of a dead baby from the womb and 3)abortion being the intentional killing and removal of a baby from the womb.
So I'm not sure why you say that I am out of line,
YOu were out of line by inserting me into your discourse with jimmydiggs... I am fairly confident most of the audience is also able to make that distinction.
Quote:Asserting "the OTHER CHICK" which would be ME
Okay, I didn't remember who it was who had made up a definition of abortion and wanted to use that instead of the actual definition. If it was you, thank you for stepping up and admitting to it. I apologize if you were offended by my reference to you. Since your handle is "BarlyGurl," I don't think you have much room for complaining about being referred to as "that other chick," but I do offer an apology if you are offended.
For someone who asserts to use word and their definitions properly and obstinateley clings to a "technical" (albeit broad) definition of "abortion", let me help you communicate. A CHICK is the young offspring of a bird and can be of either sex. Also a duragatory reference of the a woman originating in Urban Slang. HMMM... name calling and hypocrisy noted. Let the reader notice the un-apology by alluding I fit a definition for "CHICK".
Quote:did redefine or holds the above postition is only going to get you involved in a smackdown.
And threats of violence in such a public forum are probably not wise.
laughable... WHERE is there a THREAT of VIOLENCE???? This is an anonymous internet discussion forum. What a RUSE!(THAT means WILY SUBTERFUGE). Try not to assert things as fact unless you have proof or evidence. The only threat here is that I may discredit the validity of your argument before the audience.
Quote:I will not tolerate you or anyone else misrepresenting me or my convictions.
Did I misrepresent you or your views? Are you or are you not the person who, in a discussion with me, made up a definition for the word "abortion" which was not the commonly accepted definition?
I did not "make-up" a definition... I made clarifying distinctions from yours.
If you are not the person who did that, then you are not the person to whom I am referring, and you can get off your high horse, because I'm obviously not referring to you.
[COLOR="rgb(255, 0, 255)"[COLOR="Magenta"]]High Horse? BAITING Tactic?[[/COLOR]/COLOR]
If you are the person who did that, I am not "misrepresenting" you or your convictions. I am stating exactly what happened: You made up a definition for the word. You offered no source or reference for it. I pointed out that you were mistaken in your definition, and offered a couple of sources for the proper definition. You ignored those references and insisted on using your own definition.
False...in repeating that I "made-up" definitions I will repeat to you, I made clarifying distinctions from yours.
Again, you're welcome to use any definition you want for any word you want. If you want to communicate with another person, however, you are going to have to learn to speak the same language, which includes using the generally accepted definitions for the words you use.
Volleyed right back at ya!
I am not going to apologize for attempting to help you communicate.
AD NASEUM..
Quote:
you previously condoned using birthcontrol... and many forms of birthcontrol are... indeed abortafacents.
You are partially correct: I do condone the use of
many types of birth control.
Some types of birth control are considered abortive, some are not.
Most -- condoms, diaphragm, etc. -- work to keep the egg from becoming fertilized. No fertilized egg, no conception, and therefore no abortion.
Anyone who considers him or herself pro-life is either a hypocrite or an
idiot to be against these types of birth control, since they actually decrease the number of abortions. Some types of birth control work by not allowing the fertilized egg to implant. Now, under the generally accepted definition of "abortion," namely, anything after conception, this would qualify. A side note: the medical field does not consider this abortion, because the egg has not implanted.
???? Because the entire medical field is made up of people who as a whole believe that life begins at "implantation" vs. "at conception"???? there you go with those FACTS without any evidence... what an egregious abuse of qualitative authority.
However, the generally accepted definition of "abortion" does include these cases, and therefore birth control choices such as the pill, IUDs, and similar devices are usually considered abortive. (See, this is how one discusses things in a civilized society. I know that the term "abortion" has a different medical definition than the way it is used mostly, in the non-medical field. I am deferring to the "commonly accepted" definition rather than to the medical definition. Because I am not speaking to a room full of doctors and nurses, but to a forum of the general public.)
OH my gosh... a concession? EXcept that you have it backwards, the broad term abortion in the medical field means PRE-parturition expulsion from the womb vs Parturition which is birthing. Further, the two previous medical terms are more commonly used in the veterinary field for lack of human compassion regarding the undistinguished use of the general term "abortion". For example... "The mare aborted her foal" not "The mare miscarried her foal" due to the fact that there are no MORAL Connotations involving animals (non-christian animal RIGHTS excluded for contextual reason).As stated previously the "abortion debate" is about the PROCEDURE of intentionally killing of babies in the womb.
An ectopic removal, such as I experienced about 4 years ago, is an abortion, both in the generally accepted definition of abortion and according to the strict medical definition. It is the removal of a fertilized egg that has implanted.
OPINION NOT FACT
For the reading audience, an ectopic condition, commonly reffered to as a an ectopic pregnancy is when the zygote fails to decend into the womb and settles either in the abdominal cavity or the fallopian tube where it it CAN develop to the point of rupture the fallopian tube or to a size that that when it dies is large enough to cause toxicity for lack of ability to be expelled since it is not in the WOMB... both scenarios a life threatening to the woman. My point in arguing with Diva is that the "removal procedure" is not an abortion should (hopefully) be apparent as the "pregnancy" is not viable because it is not in the WOMB. God having designed the WOMB for the purpose of the developing the baby and the abdomen and fallopian tubes are not the womb, cannot function as such,nor is there an exit or means of expulsion for this type of "mis-pregnancy" except by surgical intervention which is NOT the same as a c-section.
My God is a god of distinctions... for example "SEX--the marraige bed undefiled,fornication,sodomy,rape" or "Drinking--medicinal,drunkeness, liberty". MY God is neither an author of confusion. Obstinately clinging to this BROAD definition of abortion does violence to every woman who has every miscarried because according to DIVA, that was an abortion. It does violence to every woman I know (except DIVA) who has struggled struggled emotionally after having an ectopic removal. My argument with vocabulary distinctions harmonizes with with "life at conception" and "anti-abortion" values and leaves room for the tender healing mercy of Christ without saying that SOME abortions are acceptable. I sincerely hope in defending this position a reader can find healing, help heal another or has been given clarity to an important and controversial topic.
"I have no interest in debating the isue further as I think I have adequately refuted DIVA's "abortion" argument and I leave it to the audience to decide who argues passionately according to biblical principals and who argues for personal position. I thank the audience for reading.
