"The discussion really got blown out of proportion somewhere along the line . I just had a problem with justifying abortion with false terms . It seemed more than obvious to me to use the meaning of words that is common in the English langauge . This is obviously the purpose of a dictionary and thus that is what I try to reasonably use in a discussion ."
"But even the dictionary definition contains multiple meanings - reflecting the multiple uses of a particular word - and even many of those definitions were vaguely stated . I think that most people on both sides of the debate value `` human rights `` . In valuing `` human rights `` , they have a particular image in mind of what is `` human `` in that case . Do you really think that , by forcing them to acknowledge one of the dictionary definitions of `` human `` , you will change their view on who or what deserves `` human rights `` ? There view is based not on official definitions but on underlying feelings of what , in humans , they value - and mental existence is one criteria that is a requirement for them and for myself . I do n't know who the main person is that is pushing the arguements about definitions now - you or Shooterandproud or ShadowPickachu or Sigma or gman , etc - but , whoever it is , please think about what exactly it is you are trying to accomplish . Do you seriously think that changing a persons definition of a word will alter their view on abortion rights ?"
"It seemed more than obvious to me to use the meaning of words that is common in the English langauge ."
"Do you really think that , by forcing them to acknowledge one of the dictionary definitions of `` human `` , you will change their view on who or what deserves `` human rights `` ?"