Three plaintiffs testified about the trauma they experienced carrying nonviable pregnancies.

    • MasterOBee Master/King@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      That’s called cherry picking.

      Oh, so you can choose a definition and deny a fetus any rights because of it, but if I use a definition of the same word, it’s intellectually disingenuous? Be consistent man.

      If you want an honest discussion about the rights of women vs a fetus, I’ll be glad to have it. I just ask that you stop playing games and actually discuss.

      • Cabrio@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        You’re doing it again, if you can’t foster understanding you fail at the basis of communication and the reasoning for using a set of agreed upon definitions for delivering and interpreting conceptual ideas. I get it, you can’t participate in good faith communication because you lack the education and comprehension of how to participate in good faith communication.

        Maybe next time try to internalise the definition being presented to you instead of disingenuously and intentionally misrepresenting agreed upon primary definitions of words.

        I don’t see any reason to repeat myself, if you can’t communicate in good faith then your ideas aren’t worth listening to.

        • MasterOBee Master/King@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          We can choose different definitions of ‘individuals’ or we can talk about the core of our arguments - you don’t think the babys life should be considered when weighing an abortion or not, and I do think it should be.

          We can discuss and try to come to some common ground, or you can continue your inconsistency and rude behavior. I’d prefer the former, but if you can’t handle an honest discussion, I’m fine with the latter.

          • Cabrio@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            No, when someone presents you an idea or concept you use their definitions so that you understand what they are trying to communicate.

            You have no interest in discussion otherwise you’d have been capable of participating in good faith and fostering a maximal amount of understanding between both parties while making the utmost attempt to accurately and correctly interpret the other person’s communication.

            Instead you choose to misrepresent other people’s messages, you intentionally try to force your definitions on their words in an attempt to discredit them rather than internalise and comprehend them.

            You think we don’t understand your position because you choose not to understand ours. We do understand your position, we have the added understanding of our position and by contrasting and comparing the two we’ve determined yours is incorrect. You however choose to disregard our position, refuse to interpret our position in good faith, refuse to understand why our position makes your position invalid, and then you attempt to disingenuously misinterpret and misrepresent our position.

            You are incapable of participating in the discussion you think you want to have because of your own short comings regarding communicative ability.

            This isn’t a matter of opinion, this is an objective fact of interpersonal communication, something you are lacking a sufficient grasp of to participate in.

            • MasterOBee Master/King@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              7
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              No, when someone presents you an idea or concept you use their definitions so that you understand what they are trying to communicate.

              Oh so I always have to use whatever definitions of words you come up with to have a conversation with you?

              You intiated a conversation with this question to me “Nothing hard about it, to have individual rights one must first be an individual. If you don’t understand the word individual pick up a dictionary.” - I looked it up and used the definition. Then you get mad because I didn’t choose the definition that you, not even stated, but rather thought of. What are you even arguing?

              I don’t think that’s a good faith discussion and I’d rather not discuss such a complex, nuanced moral issue with someone that only believes they’re 100% right.

                • MasterOBee Master/King@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  You’re the one saying I need to use your definition of words no matter what. But you didn’t provide any definitions. Come on, man. At least pretend like you might want to one day have a single argument in good faith.