That would be due to one party's absolute inability to accept the fact that "murder" is unlawful, and abortion is lawful.

The definition of murder actually lies at the very core of the discussion.

Well, for reasonable folks, anyway...

You'll be sittin' around eatin' popcorn eh ?

Let us know how that works out :-)

I doubt additional discussion with that one party will accomplish anything. Getting one intransigent individual to accept a definition everyone else has already recognized doesn't strike me as worth the effort.
If he persists in using the term in a fashion you deem inappropriate, I'd request that you just ignore it; it doesn't seem that he's likely to persuade anyone here to accept is alternative terminology. You are, of course, free to precede however you see fit; but I sincerely doubt you'll change his mind.

__________________
To educate a man in mind and not in morals is to educate a menace to society. -Theodore Roosevelt

Right you are :-)

If everyone on earth yelled at me, called me ignorant and told me I had to accept a cube as a sphere I would tell ALL to "Go suck eggs."

I'm right. I know I'm right and people that are wrong cannot ever convince me that wrong is right and right is wrong.

My beleifs and ideas haven't and don't change depending on which way the wind blows in other words

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

This is fine for the sake of the thread here - back-and-forth with people who invent terms or otherwise prevent the establishment of a rational basis for the discussion is probably not useful for that particular discussion.

But on the issue at large, there are lots of "intransigent individuals". I'd venture a guess that you (and me, for that matter) are in the minority on being able to consider laws in terms of compromise and heuristics. That's the tricky thing about a wedge issue - easy to understand and have an utterly un-nuanced opinion. This attracts people who may shy away from more complex philosophical/economic/policy issues.

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

Did you shake your fists and stamp your feet while typing this?

The schizophrenic may believe that the government is pumping thoughts into his head and that the tin foil in his hat will protect him. The ferocity of that belief doesn't make it right.

__________________
When they come a wull staun ma groon
Staun ma groon al nae be afraid
Thoughts awe hame tak awa ma fear
Sweat an bluid hide ma veil awe tears

Ya, you betcha

It's my policy to ALWAYS let other nobodies on the internet get my blood boiling

Got my tin foil hat on right now

Not surprising that you're ignoring what I've said:

One last abortion poll (Now with more options!)

Yeah, I'm an "intransigent individual" who is unable "to consider laws in terms of compromise and heuristics."

More of the same crapola from good ol' doc

Because I won't beleive nonsense I'm intransigent

Well, Captain, you may have a point that answering you with law when you are making a point of morality is not a good argument, but I notice you haven't done a very good job of defending your moral position itself. I'm still waiting for some reason to consider an insensate cluster of cells that lacks a nervous system let alone anything capable of human thought to be a "person." So far, all you've presented is an argument that anything with the potential to be a person should be treated as if it already was one, and yet you're not willing to take that to its logical conclusion and condemn all birth control, including abstinence, which strikes me as a fatal inconsistency in your position.

Other than that, it seems to me that all you have supporting your views are misplaced emotions and sentimentality, feelings for an embryo that are more appropriate for a full-fledged baby in arms.

No, you're intransigent because you're foolishly holding onto a position that cannot be defended with any degree of reason...

I didn't ignore it. I read it when you posted it and didn't really have anything to say about it one way or the other. It seemed like a general platitude about the USA, and perhaps a bit ironic since you'd worked yourself into a revolutionary lather a few posts before that.

As for the rest of my post to Dilettante, I wasn't speaking just about you, but generally about anyone who engages in the rhetorical sleight of hand of redefining terms in lieu of making arguments. If anyone is going to do that on any subject it renders discussion pointless, since a common framework is needed from which to argue. The rest of it wasn't directed specifically at you or anyone else - just a general observation of wedge issues. Most people on either "side" of them would refuse to budge an inch. I don't know or honestly care whether that includes you or not. Making up nonsensical definitions sort of limits your ability to meaningfully communicate ideas right from the start.

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

My argument is NOT that "anything with the potential to be a person should be treated as if it already was one." As I said here:

There's an obvious difference between individual sperm cells/unfertilized ova and the fertilized blastocyst that has joined and combined DNA. It is this combining that allows for the creation of what will become a fully functional human being if left alone.

Some guys spunk will never turn into a person on its own.

Some woman will never magically become pregnant on her own.

Yes, they both have potential. Potential IF some things happen to JOIN them.

This potential isn't comparable to the potential that they have after JOINING. That you're trying to MAKE them comparable shows poor judgement in my opinion.

The joined fertilized blastocyst has a future as a PERSON if left alone. The sperm and ova do ONLY if something ELSE FIRST OCCURS. In other words they DON'T until just the right things happen. They have to do a "meet and greet" and "mix" FIRST.

One last abortion poll (Now with more options!)

We have a newly formed genetic human being. No, it can't walk and talk or drive a car yet. But it IS fully human genetically and WILL develop into one if left in the environment it was formed in.

You're still trying to equate individual sperm cells and individual egg cells with a joined pair that will grow into a human. They aren't comparable. One will become a fully functional and able human (unless you kill it) the other two will NOT. Unless they meet up in the right conditions.

Nothing emotional or sentimental at all. It is the fact that these "balls of cells" are having an entire life taken from them. The entire life of a human being is being denied it. By other human beings. That is murder in it's most despicable form. Even more grotesque because so many of us believe its a "right" and that there's nothing wrong with it.

It's a wrong. It's a crime by humans against other humans. Many of us think it's ok. Socially accepted murder.

Bark at the moon insanity.

If I weren't a busy man and had DB access to USPO, I might do a search to see what percentage of your posts just repeat your previous posts. I'd venture a guess of 20-40 percent.

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson