Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="RobGMN" data-source="post: 8872302" data-attributes="member: 683408">So the definition is correct. Not just correct, but &quot;absolutely&quot; correct.Your word.And there is no &quot;OR&quot; or &quot;AND&quot; between the SEPARATE sections. This means they can exist as standalone definitions of the word.The very FIRST line is &quot;generation and production of young&quot;.[ATTACH=full]57294[/ATTACH]Soooo, if a woman is pregnant, she is generating and producing young.You cannot argue this, as you said the definition is correct.Since a pregnant woman is procreating, by the definition you just said is &quot;absolutely&quot; correct, then stripping her of the right to stop that procreation, you are forcing her to continue the procreation. You will not allow her to stop it, so you are FORCING her to continue it.Can we agree that similarly, if you will not allow someone to have a tumor removed, you are FORCING them to continue life with that lung tumor?Or do you think there is some other thing that happens when a woman wants to abort a ***** but cannot? Maybe she does the magic dance and the ***** is taken by the stork to another uterus? Maybe she can pray it away? Maybe travel back in time and just not have ***?Same with the lung tumor.And while you are trying to think up your spin, keep in mind that if you try to argue all four points of the definition MUST be met for procreation, then you have just invalidated the lives of approx 8 MILLION people who have been born without any ****** activity happening.Test tune babies. Been happening without ****** activity since 1977.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="RobGMN, post: 8872302, member: 683408"] So the definition is correct. Not just correct, but "absolutely" correct. Your word. And there is no "OR" or "AND" between the SEPARATE sections. This means they can exist as standalone definitions of the word. The very FIRST line is "generation and production of young". [ATTACH type="full" width="308px" alt="1710184837544.png"]57294[/ATTACH] Soooo, if a woman is pregnant, she is generating and producing young. You cannot argue this, as you said the definition is correct. Since a pregnant woman is procreating, by the definition you just said is "absolutely" correct, then stripping her of the right to stop that procreation, you are [B]forcing[/B] her to continue the procreation. You will not allow her to stop it, so you are FORCING her to continue it. Can we agree that similarly, if you will not allow someone to have a tumor removed, you are FORCING them to continue life with that lung tumor? Or do you think there is some other thing that happens when a woman wants to abort a ***** but cannot? Maybe she does the magic dance and the ***** is taken by the stork to another uterus? Maybe she can pray it away? Maybe travel back in time and just not have ***? Same with the lung tumor. And while you are trying to think up your spin, keep in mind that if you try to argue all four points of the definition MUST be met for procreation, then you have just invalidated the lives of approx 8 MILLION people who have been born without any ****** activity happening. Test tune babies. Been happening without ****** activity since 1977. [/QUOTE]

Verification