Forbidden terminology

Events occurring and how they relate/affect Anabaptist faith and culture.
MaxPC
Posts: 9044
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2016 9:09 pm
Location: Former full time RVers
Affiliation: PlainRomanCatholic
Contact:

Re: Forbidden terminology

Post by MaxPC »

There are certain science terms that have been standardized for the sake of clarity when documenting research in multiple nations. Eg: One of the benchmarks of research involves the repeatability of an experiment to compare results. If the results are similar they can be used for further data sets. Standardized terms are needed to accurately replicate an experiment regardless of the language of the researcher. However this is not the terminology that is the subject of these actions.

Politically correct speech is about appeasing a political agenda. As Christians, we know that we aren't always politically correct vis a vis the current political agenda. Of note is that our beliefs encompass Biblical teachings that would offend the Dem political platform:
-homosexual behaviors, transgenderism, etc. are defined as abominations and sins in the Bible
-abortion is also defined as an abomination and sin
-divorce and remarriage is likewise Biblically verboten and so on and so forth.

Govt that forces PC speech, thought control, and legalizes immorality is always going to be a problem for devout Christians.
0 x
Max (Plain Catholic)
Mt 24:35
Proverbs 18:2 A fool does not delight in understanding but only in revealing his own mind.
1 Corinthians 3:19 For the wisdom of this world is folly with God
User avatar
Josh
Posts: 23823
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 6:23 pm
Location: 1000' ASL
Affiliation: The church of God

Re: Forbidden terminology

Post by Josh »

Soloist wrote:I know that the way politics uses these terms is wrong, but to get technical, no one complains about calling the baby an embryo or a zygote.... All of those are a baby but they define differing stages and has been politicized.

Its like saying IUD's don't cause abortions... that depends on when the conceptus becomes a baby in your eyes...
Except IUDs don’t cause abortions, according to the best scientific evidence.
0 x
Soloist
Posts: 5495
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2016 4:49 pm
Affiliation: CM Seeker

Re: Forbidden terminology

Post by Soloist »

Josh wrote:
Soloist wrote:I know that the way politics uses these terms is wrong, but to get technical, no one complains about calling the baby an embryo or a zygote.... All of those are a baby but they define differing stages and has been politicized.

Its like saying IUD's don't cause abortions... that depends on when the conceptus becomes a baby in your eyes...
Except IUDs don’t cause abortions, according to the best scientific evidence.
You are either doing a tongue and cheek move here based on the thread, or you believe the baby is not a baby from the point of conception. (aka from fertilization) or you believe the egg is never fertilized.
The copper IUD prevents implantation by creating a hostile environment and whereas copper in the low concentrations from an IUD does impair swimmers but doesn't kill off the majority until 5 hours have passed. We have shown that swimmers can reach the egg in around 30 minutes or so and the copper does delay the acrosome reaction but, by in large, the woman is releasing additional mucus and the toxic copper would flow downstream. Now, all this to say, if you pull up a study, it will show that copper kills swimmers in around 5 hours, or so but that's remaining at a consistent concentration of 100 micro-grams. There are no studies showing that conception is prevented by the lower levels of copper in the fallopian tubes. As a side note, although it does reduce pregnancy massively, it doesn't stop it, and it does have a 0.8 fail rate in the first year, showing proof in concept of what I'm saying. Can I say every woman out there every time she drops an egg its conceived and rejected? No, not even close. I can however say that some percentage of the eggs are fertilized and rejected by the uterus, even less so become implanted. As a side note, apparently (told to me by an ER doc as well as my wife's OB) (and wiki) its more commonly a tubal pregnancy when it does happen. As for the hormonal IUD's they either prevent implantation or dropping of the egg. This argument will end up surrounding the Copper IUD... I'm not interested in arguing and I've said my piece on it. If you want to continue this, message me or take it up in another thread.
0 x
Soloist, but I hate singing alone
Soloist, but my wife posts with me
Soloist, but I believe in community
Soloist, but I want God in the pilot seat
User avatar
JimFoxvog
Posts: 2891
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2016 10:56 pm
Location: Northern Illinois
Affiliation: MCUSA

Re: Forbidden terminology

Post by JimFoxvog »

MaxPC wrote: Of note is that our beliefs encompass Biblical teachings that would offend the Dem political platform:
-homosexual behaviors, transgenderism, etc. are defined as abominations and sins in the Bible
-abortion is also defined as an abomination and sin.
In my opinion abortion is usually wrong. But where in the Bible is it defined as an abomination and sin?
0 x
Wade
Posts: 2683
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2016 12:09 am
Affiliation: kingdom Christian

Re: Forbidden terminology

Post by Wade »

Is it rather that some don't focus on the "letter" but are troubled by what the heart or spirit behind it could be?
1 x
MaxPC
Posts: 9044
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2016 9:09 pm
Location: Former full time RVers
Affiliation: PlainRomanCatholic
Contact:

Re: Forbidden terminology

Post by MaxPC »

JimFoxvog wrote:
MaxPC wrote: Of note is that our beliefs encompass Biblical teachings that would offend the Dem political platform:
-homosexual behaviors, transgenderism, etc. are defined as abominations and sins in the Bible
-abortion is also defined as an abomination and sin.
In my opinion abortion is usually wrong. But where in the Bible is it defined as an abomination and sin?
The Bible calls murder an abomination and sin. The Bible emphasizes the sanctity of life even in the womb and though not mentioned by the term abortion per se, it does describe the act of abortion in Exodus 21. Destroying that life is murder. Abortion is murder always. Here is a list of verses to get you started on the theme of the sanctity of all life.
0 x
Max (Plain Catholic)
Mt 24:35
Proverbs 18:2 A fool does not delight in understanding but only in revealing his own mind.
1 Corinthians 3:19 For the wisdom of this world is folly with God
User avatar
Josh
Posts: 23823
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 6:23 pm
Location: 1000' ASL
Affiliation: The church of God

Re: Forbidden terminology

Post by Josh »

JimFoxvog wrote:
MaxPC wrote: Of note is that our beliefs encompass Biblical teachings that would offend the Dem political platform:
-homosexual behaviors, transgenderism, etc. are defined as abominations and sins in the Bible
-abortion is also defined as an abomination and sin.
In my opinion abortion is usually wrong. But where in the Bible is it defined as an abomination and sin?
The Bible is mute on the topic of when life begins; in Old Testament times, culturally, nobody would have really thought “at conception”. That concept is relatively recent. The Bible never talks directly about abortion at all (other than a bizarre passage in the law that seems to actually allow abortifacients in the event of adultery, according to some scholars).

Meanwhile, the scriptures are very clear in the NT that we aren’t supposed to kill adult people who are born, like our enemies.

Many non-Anabaptists can’t seem to understand how inconsistent their message is when they support state sponsored warfare, carry guns for self defence, and then complain they want abortion made illegal.
0 x
User avatar
Josh
Posts: 23823
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 6:23 pm
Location: 1000' ASL
Affiliation: The church of God

Re: Forbidden terminology

Post by Josh »

Soloist wrote:
Josh wrote:
Soloist wrote:I know that the way politics uses these terms is wrong, but to get technical, no one complains about calling the baby an embryo or a zygote.... All of those are a baby but they define differing stages and has been politicized.

Its like saying IUD's don't cause abortions... that depends on when the conceptus becomes a baby in your eyes...
Except IUDs don’t cause abortions, according to the best scientific evidence.
You are either doing a tongue and cheek move here based on the thread, or you believe the baby is not a baby from the point of conception. (aka from fertilization) or you believe the egg is never fertilized.
The copper IUD prevents implantation by creating a hostile environment and whereas copper in the low concentrations from an IUD does impair swimmers but doesn't kill off the majority until 5 hours have passed. We have shown that swimmers can reach the egg in around 30 minutes or so and the copper does delay the acrosome reaction but, by in large, the woman is releasing additional mucus and the toxic copper would flow downstream. Now, all this to say, if you pull up a study, it will show that copper kills swimmers in around 5 hours, or so but that's remaining at a consistent concentration of 100 micro-grams. There are no studies showing that conception is prevented by the lower levels of copper in the fallopian tubes. As a side note, although it does reduce pregnancy massively, it doesn't stop it, and it does have a 0.8 fail rate in the first year, showing proof in concept of what I'm saying. Can I say every woman out there every time she drops an egg its conceived and rejected? No, not even close. I can however say that some percentage of the eggs are fertilized and rejected by the uterus, even less so become implanted. As a side note, apparently (told to me by an ER doc as well as my wife's OB) (and wiki) its more commonly a tubal pregnancy when it does happen. As for the hormonal IUD's they either prevent implantation or dropping of the egg. This argument will end up surrounding the Copper IUD... I'm not interested in arguing and I've said my piece on it. If you want to continue this, message me or take it up in another thread.
And that is all opinions and none of that is scripture.
0 x
User avatar
Bootstrap
Posts: 14442
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 9:59 am
Affiliation: Mennonite

Re: Forbidden terminology

Post by Bootstrap »

Back to the Centers for Disease Control ...

The CDC is probably the best resource for finding basic information on how many abortions are performed and who is getting abortions. Their reports do not take sides on the issue, they simply report the facts. See these pages:

https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/ ... ortion.htm

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/66/ss/ ... ss6624a1_w

Presenting the list of forbidden terms implies that the CDC is somehow promoting abortion. Let's search for abortion and see what we can find ...

Hmmm. They aren't promoting abortion. And they report the kinds of statistics that are useful in fighting abortion. I'm pro-life, and once lobbied with Right to Life, but even pro-choicers are alarmed if you point out just how many abortions are being performed. Without the CDC, we wouldn't have this data.

So ... who is playing politics on this issue? I don't think it's the CDC. This is a strategy you see quite a bit. Start a fight and imply that the other guy started it. Play extremist partisan politics and imply that the CDC is the one that is doing it.
0 x
Is it biblical? Is it Christlike? Is it loving? Is it true? How can I find out?
lesterb
Posts: 1160
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 11:41 pm
Location: Alberta
Affiliation: Western Fellowship
Contact:

Re: Forbidden terminology

Post by lesterb »

lesterb wrote:So the Center of Disease control has been forbidden to use the following words: “vulnerable,” “entitlement,” “diversity,” “transgender,” “fetus,” “evidence-based” and “science-based.” See this Washington Post article.
This has created a big uproar amongst the elite, apparently. But you'd be hard put to put together a better list of politically correct vocabulary. These are the buzzwords of the "inner circle".

I'm not a Trump fan, but this has got to be a good thing. If you have to assert that what you are saying is evidence-based or science-based it probably needs to be propped up. Truth should be self-evident. Fetus is a term that removes the human aspect of an unborn child. A fetus is just a tumor in a woman's womb and within her power to remove if she considers it "malignant". Call it what it is--a BABY! Transgender is technically impossible in most cases, and is only a product of people's wishful thinking. Vulnerable? Those poor people need MY help--just another way of degrading part of the population. Entitlement? I have my rights. It may be at the cost of everyone else's rights, but I'm entitled to them. Diversity? I'll tolerate anything except intoleration. Don't try to take a stand for Truth around me, because that isn't politically correct anymore.

So we are being dragged back in time 150 years according to one commentator. Well, it might do a lot of people a lot of good to regain some old fashioned values.
Just to realign things a bit, my OP didn't really have anything to do with the CDC at all. It just happened that this list of vocabulary was given to them. My point is that these words, all of which are good solid English words, promote some ideas today that I don't feel feel comfortable with. Some more so than others. But at least in my mind, taken together as a list, they bring up an image of a certain kind of people, one of whom recently ran for the office of POTUS.
0 x
Post Reply