Here is my position on the abortion issue:

I believe that life begins at conception, and that the unborn baby acquires certain rights at that point. Those rights are probably sufficient that when someone murders a pregnant mother, he/she can legitimately be prosecuted for two killings. The prospective mother is clearly a human being, and as a result also has rights. In the early stages of pregnancy, the rights of the prospective mother probably outweigh those of the unborn baby. The old question about there is a fire and you can save a baby or a dozen embryos, which one do you save, would seem to apply.

As the unborn baby develops and near birth, its rights increase relative to the prospective mother's. At some point, probably viability, the unborn baby's rights trump those of the prospective mother, except in cases of rape, incest, or serious threats to the health of the mother or child.

So I am okay with abortions during the first trimester, and for cause (rape, incest, health) after that.

I think the anti-abortion folks should focus their efforts on making adoption a less arduous option. I think that increasing abortions can significantly reduce the need for, and occurrence of, abortions. In particular, I reject efforts to prevent adoption by gay singles or couples. I know personally of two cases of adoptions by gays, one single and one couple, where the lives of the children involved are so incredibly much better than they would have been otherwise.

When evangelicals oppose adoption by gay parents, my question is always, "Would you rather the baby be aborted?"

(02-10-2021 12:00 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-10-2021 11:27 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-10-2021 09:52 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Viability is a very real way to differentiate when to outlaw abortions

Exactly. It is a legal standard, not a scientific one, used to determine when it is OK to end the life of a human being.

Not sure of you point here...

But I would argue it is inherently scientific, since it makes the determination of viability based on the science of the day.

Are you trying to bring this back to the idea of when a fertilized egg should be considered a human?

IMO, the development of a human being starts when a fertilized egg begins dividing and reproducing.

If you disagree, when does it happen, in your opinion? first grade? Potty training? HS graduation?

The entire development of a child that someday will result in an engineer or a lawyer or a pro football player starts with the first division.

(02-10-2021 12:31 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-10-2021 12:00 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-10-2021 11:27 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-10-2021 09:52 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Viability is a very real way to differentiate when to outlaw abortions

Exactly. It is a legal standard, not a scientific one, used to determine when it is OK to end the life of a human being.

Not sure of you point here...

But I would argue it is inherently scientific, since it makes the determination of viability based on the science of the day.

Are you trying to bring this back to the idea of when a fertilized egg should be considered a human?

IMO, the development of a human being starts when a fertilized egg begins dividing and reproducing.

If you disagree, when does it happen, in your opinion? first grade? Potty training? HS graduation?

The entire development of a child that someday will result in an engineer or a lawyer or a pro football player starts with the first division.

Yes, the development of a human being starts when an egg is fertilized, but I would personally find it hard to call a newly fertilized egg a human.

But I think this line of questioning is arduous and rather pointless.

Owl#'s did a really great job above discussing this in a way that isn't trying to make it a gotcha (whether you're doing this intentionally or not).

(02-10-2021 12:11 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  When evangelicals oppose adoption by gay parents, my question is always, "Would you rather the baby be aborted?"

Seem analogous to the question about oil pipelines: "Would you rather it be transported by truck?"

(02-10-2021 12:47 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(02-10-2021 12:11 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  When evangelicals oppose adoption by gay parents, my question is always, "Would you rather the baby be aborted?"

Seem analogous to the question about oil pipelines: "Would you rather it be transported by truck?"

When Warren Buffett and George Soros own the trucks, there is a lot of money behind answering, "Truck."

(02-10-2021 12:11 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Here is my position on the abortion issue:

I believe that life begins at conception, and that the unborn baby acquires certain rights at that point. Those rights are probably sufficient that when someone murders a pregnant mother, he/she can legitimately be prosecuted for two killings. The prospective mother is clearly a human being, and as a result also has rights. In the early stages of pregnancy, the rights of the prospective mother probably outweigh those of the unborn baby. The old question about there is a fire and you can save a baby or a dozen embryos, which one do you save, would seem to apply.

As the unborn baby develops and near birth, its rights increase relative to the prospective mother's. At some point, probably viability, the unborn baby's rights trump those of the prospective mother, except in cases of rape, incest, or serious threats to the health of the mother or child.

So I am okay with abortions during the first trimester, and for cause (rape, incest, health) after that.

I think the anti-abortion folks should focus their efforts on making adoption a less arduous option. I think that increasing abortions can significantly reduce the need for, and occurrence of, abortions. In particular, I reject efforts to prevent adoption by gay singles or couples. I know personally of two cases of adoptions by gays, one single and one couple, where the lives of the children involved are so incredibly much better than they would have been otherwise.

When evangelicals oppose adoption by gay parents, my question is always, "Would you rather the baby be aborted?"

The other thing anti-abortion folks should focus on is sex education and support services. Colorado found that abortion rates fell when they made access to birth control (pill and IUDs, specifically) easier to receive.

Let's focus on providing alternatives to someone getting an abortion (like your adoption comment above), but not outlaw the process entirely so that women who require one don't have to search out services on the black market.

Side note - I think your framing of the conversation about when life begins and the rights of both the unborn and mother is very conducive to actually discussing the topic.

(02-10-2021 12:47 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(02-10-2021 12:11 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  When evangelicals oppose adoption by gay parents, my question is always, "Would you rather the baby be aborted?"

Seem analogous to the question about oil pipelines: "Would you rather it be transported by truck?"

Exactly - it's why I am not opposed to Keystone XL. Pragmatic solutions to minimize risk!

(02-10-2021 12:44 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-10-2021 12:31 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-10-2021 12:00 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-10-2021 11:27 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-10-2021 09:52 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Viability is a very real way to differentiate when to outlaw abortions

Exactly. It is a legal standard, not a scientific one, used to determine when it is OK to end the life of a human being.

Not sure of you point here...

But I would argue it is inherently scientific, since it makes the determination of viability based on the science of the day.

Are you trying to bring this back to the idea of when a fertilized egg should be considered a human?

IMO, the development of a human being starts when a fertilized egg begins dividing and reproducing.

If you disagree, when does it happen, in your opinion? first grade? Potty training? HS graduation?

The entire development of a child that someday will result in an engineer or a lawyer or a pro football player starts with the first division.

Yes, the development of a human being starts when an egg is fertilized, but I would personally find it hard to call a newly fertilized egg a human.

I don't know what else to call it that does not deny its humanity. I have heard it referred to as a tumor or a lump of flesh. I don't know what words you use. I use "child'.

But I am not trying to legitimize or delegitimize abortion. You guys are fighting the wrong battle if you think that is my goal. I merely was stating my belief that the fertilized egg is just a human in the very earliest stages of development.

(02-10-2021 12:11 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Here is my position on the abortion issue:

I believe that life begins at conception, and that the unborn baby acquires certain rights at that point. Those rights are probably sufficient that when someone murders a pregnant mother, he/she can legitimately be prosecuted for two killings. The prospective mother is clearly a human being, and as a result also has rights. In the early stages of pregnancy, the rights of the prospective mother probably outweigh those of the unborn baby. The old question about there is a fire and you can save a baby or a dozen embryos, which one do you save, would seem to apply.

As the unborn baby develops and near birth, its rights increase relative to the prospective mother's. At some point, probably viability, the unborn baby's rights trump those of the prospective mother, except in cases of rape, incest, or serious threats to the health of the mother or child.

So I am okay with abortions during the first trimester, and for cause (rape, incest, health) after that.

I think the anti-abortion folks should focus their efforts on making adoption a less arduous option. I think that increasing abortions can significantly reduce the need for, and occurrence of, abortions. In particular, I reject efforts to prevent adoption by gay singles or couples. I know personally of two cases of adoptions by gays, one single and one couple, where the lives of the children involved are so incredibly much better than they would have been otherwise.

When evangelicals oppose adoption by gay parents, my question is always, "Would you rather the baby be aborted?"

I agree with all of this.

(02-10-2021 11:52 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-10-2021 11:33 AM)mrbig Wrote:  The question is not whether an embryo is a developing human. It is when "life" starts. Is it a living human if it does not eat, drink, breathe, or defecate?

Is eating, drinking, breathing, and defecating your definition of being human? My cat does those things.

This is a perfect example of why I find discussions with you to be a drag, so thank you for providing a good example. I make the point that the issue is not just "human" but "living human". You completely ignore the "living" part and sarcastically note that your cat is alive while ignoring the "human" part of the evaluation.

Or perhaps you were just making the argument that your cat is more alive then a human embryo?!? That would be a surprising twist.

(02-10-2021 11:52 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I think you, like Lad, have jumped to a conclusion about my thoughts, despite me explaining them over and over.

I try not to make assumptions about what you believe since I frequently get annoyed when you do that about me or "leftists". Also, my participation in The Quad isn't so consistent that I would necessarily have read any of your previous posts on abortion. I do seem to remember engaging in the topic one other time, but typically it is the kind of thing I am more apt to skip.

(02-10-2021 11:52 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I think abortion is one of the thorniest issues of our time, and I take neither side (I guess that is the mirror image of "both siderism").

Well said and I agree! I think my general principle is that people need to be able to live with themselves in how they approach the issue, while also not doing harm to others in their approach.

(02-10-2021 11:52 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  The question of whether or not an aborted fetus is human or not is a completely different question, and one that is much simpler IMO.

Is it though? Is a tadpole a frog? Is a caterpillar a butterfly? Is a salmon egg a salmon? And more to the point I was trying to make, when does "human life" begin and is there a difference between "human life" and "potential human life"? I don't really want to have this philosophical discussion, I just think you are oversimplifying things a bit. Even if you (or someone else) wants to get all theological on the topic, even then none of us actually knows.

(02-10-2021 11:52 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-10-2021 11:33 AM)mrbig Wrote:  I do take issue when people make silly arguments or rely on things that are not factually accurate, even if I don't take issue with their ultimate conclusions or beliefs.

If you think any of my arguments are silly or factually inaccurate, please explain which ones and why.

I do not think silly or inaccurate are the right descriptions.

(02-10-2021 12:11 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Here is my position on the abortion issue:

I believe that life begins at conception, and that the unborn baby acquires certain rights at that point. Those rights are probably sufficient that when someone murders a pregnant mother, he/she can legitimately be prosecuted for two killings. The prospective mother is clearly a human being, and as a result also has rights. In the early stages of pregnancy, the rights of the prospective mother probably outweigh those of the unborn baby. The old question about there is a fire and you can save a baby or a dozen embryos, which one do you save, would seem to apply.

As the unborn baby develops and near birth, its rights increase relative to the prospective mother's. At some point, probably viability, the unborn baby's rights trump those of the prospective mother, except in cases of rape, incest, or serious threats to the health of the mother or child.

So I am okay with abortions during the first trimester, and for cause (rape, incest, health) after that.

I think the anti-abortion folks should focus their efforts on making adoption a less arduous option. I think that increasing abortions can significantly reduce the need for, and occurrence of, abortions. In particular, I reject efforts to prevent adoption by gay singles or couples. I know personally of two cases of adoptions by gays, one single and one couple, where the lives of the children involved are so incredibly much better than they would have been otherwise.

When evangelicals oppose adoption by gay parents, my question is always, "Would you rather the baby be aborted?"

I largely agree with you (though not really that "human life" begins at conception).

I'm just not sure how the legal line should be drawn for abortions after the first few months. Who has he presumption or burden of proof when a decision to terminate is made for medical reasons? How serious does the medical reason need to be to justify termination under the law? When a medical judgment is implicated, is the government throwing doctors in jail? Pregnant women in jail? If there was incest but no rape, why is that a potential justification for a later termination?

At the end of the day, I am uncomfortable with politicians (who are again still predominantly older men) drawing these lines.

(02-10-2021 01:02 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I merely was stating my belief that the fertilized egg is just a human in the very earliest stages of development.

This is a sensible position, perhaps some of my early responses were a little harsh. I still think there are serious questions about when "life" starts for this developing human, and the ethical and moral implications that tag along with decisions regarding termination. Perhaps you were trying to avoid those discussions with your relatively simple explanation ... I just don't think they can be ignored so easily.

(02-10-2021 03:19 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(02-10-2021 11:52 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-10-2021 11:33 AM)mrbig Wrote:  The question is not whether an embryo is a developing human. It is when "life" starts. Is it a living human if it does not eat, drink, breathe, or defecate?

Is eating, drinking, breathing, and defecating your definition of being human? My cat does those things.

This is a perfect example of why I find discussions with you to be a drag, so thank you for providing a good example. I make the point that the issue is not just "human" but "living human". You completely ignore the "living" part and sarcastically note that your cat is alive while ignoring the "human" part of the evaluation.



Or perhaps you were just making the argument that your cat is more alive then a human embryo?!? That would be a surprising twist.

the focus to that point was on "human", so I missed the slight segue into "living human. Interesting point. I apologize for missing it. So are the bodies being interred at the cemetery still human? I think so, although they no longer do the things you list.

(02-10-2021 11:52 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I think you, like Lad, have jumped to a conclusion about my thoughts, despite me explaining them over and over.

I try not to make assumptions about what you believe since I frequently get annoyed when you do that about me or "leftists". Also, my participation in The Quad isn't so consistent that I would necessarily have read any of your previous posts on abortion. I do seem to remember engaging in the topic one other time, but typically it is the kind of thing I am more apt to skip.

There seems to be a recurring undercurrent that I am arguing for the repression of abortion, when in fact I am staying out of that debate. There also seems to be a thought that my questions are designed as got-ya questions. I don't think anybody who has faith in the strength of their arguements would worry about got-yas.

(02-10-2021 11:52 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I think abortion is one of the thorniest issues of our time, and I take neither side (I guess that is the mirror image of "both siderism").

Well said and I agree! I think my general principle is that people need to be able to live with themselves in how they approach the issue, while also not doing harm to others in their approach.

always nice to find common ground. I certainly can live with myself on how I approach the issue of human life.

(02-10-2021 11:52 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  The question of whether or not an aborted fetus is human or not is a completely different question, and one that is much simpler IMO.

Is it though? Is a tadpole a frog?[ Is a caterpillar a butterfly? Those are names for different stages of the development of the same creature, similar to the terms fetus, prepuberty child, and adolescent. We also undergo changes as we mature.Is a salmon egg a salmon? no. It becomes a salmon in the earliest stages of growth when it merges with a salmon sperm.And more to the point I was trying to make, when does "human life" begin {b]good question. I think it starts at the union of sperm and egg. JMHO. [/b} and is there a difference between "human life" and "potential human life"? The difference would be in the word "potential". I would classify eggs and sperm as potential, and the fertilized egg as human life. You don't have to accept this - I am just telling what MY opinion is.I don't really want to have this philosophical discussion, I just think you are oversimplifying things a bit.Maybe, but nobody has stepped forward to explain to me how or to present me with an argument that changes my viewpoint. Nobody has even tried. Even if you (or someone else) wants to get all theological on the topic, even then none of us actually knows.Why would you go to theological? Have I not been clear? This is not a religiously based argument. Where have I mentioned the Bible, or the Koran, or Buddha or any other religious teachings?

(02-10-2021 11:52 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-10-2021 11:33 AM)mrbig Wrote:  I do take issue when people make silly arguments or rely on things that are not factually accurate, even if I don't take issue with their ultimate conclusions or beliefs.

If you think any of my arguments are silly or factually inaccurate, please explain which ones and why.

I do not think silly or inaccurate are the right descriptions.

I don't think they are the right descriptions either.

(02-10-2021 03:24 PM)mrbig Wrote:  At the end of the day, I am uncomfortable with politicians (who are again still predominantly older men) drawing these lines.

Who should make laws, if not politicians? Would you prefer the laws to be made by bureaucrats, or kings?

It sounds you're actually COMPLETELY "comfortable" with politicians drawing the line at birth (i.e. declaring that killing is lawful before birth but not after), and not "comfortable" with drawing the line anywhere else (e.g. allowing killing before but not after the second trimester, or allowing it before but not after age 2*). Which means that what you're actually uncomfortable with is not WHO draws the line, but WHERE, with the comments about who (including the aside about "older men") being throwaways.

*In fairness, I'm not sure you've ever said that you'd be uncomfortable with allowing killing before but not after age 2; I'm just presuming.


On a different topic, in some real conversations (remember those?) I have made quite clear that I am uncomfortable (aghast, actually) with politicians selecting textbooks for schools. My "progressive" friends have told me that my view is crazy.

(02-10-2021 03:19 PM)mrbig Wrote:  The question is not whether an embryo is a developing human. It is when "life" starts.

Isn't the real question when it should be lawful to destroy it? That seems more important than what it is called.

One can believe that an embryo is a human life and still believe it is lawful to destroy it -- just as one can believe that it is lawful to destroy other indisputably human lives (enemy soldiers, traitors, murderers, those threatening imminent harm to oneself). Of course, the last example is one of the very few where the decision is left entirely to the individual -- and even then, the individual's decision is subject to post-facto review by the state. It seems entirely reasonable that people might be reluctant to recognize a category having no constraints whatsoever.

(02-11-2021 12:29 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(02-10-2021 03:19 PM)mrbig Wrote:  The question is not whether an embryo is a developing human. It is when "life" starts.

Isn't the real question when it should be lawful to destroy it? That seems more important than what it is called.

One can believe that an embryo is a human life and still believe it is lawful to destroy it -- just as one can believe that it is lawful to destroy other indisputably human lives (enemy soldiers, traitors, murderers, those threatening imminent harm to oneself). Of course, the last example is one of the very few where the decision is left entirely to the individual -- and even then, the individual's decision is subject to post-facto review by the state. It seems entirely reasonable that people might be reluctant to recognize a category having no constraints whatsoever.

Sorry George, I cannot and will not group an unborn innocent child with enemy soldiers, traitors, murderers, those threatening imminent harm to oneself.

(02-11-2021 08:35 AM)MerseyOwl Wrote:  

(02-11-2021 12:29 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(02-10-2021 03:19 PM)mrbig Wrote:  The question is not whether an embryo is a developing human. It is when "life" starts.

Isn't the real question when it should be lawful to destroy it? That seems more important than what it is called.

One can believe that an embryo is a human life and still believe it is lawful to destroy it -- just as one can believe that it is lawful to destroy other indisputably human lives (enemy soldiers, traitors, murderers, those threatening imminent harm to oneself). Of course, the last example is one of the very few where the decision is left entirely to the individual -- and even then, the individual's decision is subject to post-facto review by the state. It seems entirely reasonable that people might be reluctant to recognize a category having no constraints whatsoever.

Sorry George, I cannot and will not group an unborn innocent child with enemy soldiers, traitors, murderers, those threatening imminent harm to oneself.

No need to apologize to me -- I didn't say you should group them together. I simply identified the question!

(02-11-2021 08:35 AM)MerseyOwl Wrote:  

(02-11-2021 12:29 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(02-10-2021 03:19 PM)mrbig Wrote:  The question is not whether an embryo is a developing human. It is when "life" starts.

Isn't the real question when it should be lawful to destroy it? That seems more important than what it is called.

One can believe that an embryo is a human life and still believe it is lawful to destroy it -- just as one can believe that it is lawful to destroy other indisputably human lives (enemy soldiers, traitors, murderers, those threatening imminent harm to oneself). Of course, the last example is one of the very few where the decision is left entirely to the individual -- and even then, the individual's decision is subject to post-facto review by the state. It seems entirely reasonable that people might be reluctant to recognize a category having no constraints whatsoever.

Sorry George, I cannot and will not group an unborn innocent child with enemy soldiers, traitors, murderers, those threatening imminent harm to oneself.

when you put it that way, it sure makes a lot of people on the left side of the aisle look bad, since they do.

(02-10-2021 03:24 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(02-10-2021 12:11 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Here is my position on the abortion issue:

I believe that life begins at conception, and that the unborn baby acquires certain rights at that point. Those rights are probably sufficient that when someone murders a pregnant mother, he/she can legitimately be prosecuted for two killings. The prospective mother is clearly a human being, and as a result also has rights. In the early stages of pregnancy, the rights of the prospective mother probably outweigh those of the unborn baby. The old question about there is a fire and you can save a baby or a dozen embryos, which one do you save, would seem to apply.

As the unborn baby develops and near birth, its rights increase relative to the prospective mother's. At some point, probably viability, the unborn baby's rights trump those of the prospective mother, except in cases of rape, incest, or serious threats to the health of the mother or child.

So I am okay with abortions during the first trimester, and for cause (rape, incest, health) after that.

I think the anti-abortion folks should focus their efforts on making adoption a less arduous option. I think that increasing abortions can significantly reduce the need for, and occurrence of, abortions. In particular, I reject efforts to prevent adoption by gay singles or couples. I know personally of two cases of adoptions by gays, one single and one couple, where the lives of the children involved are so incredibly much better than they would have been otherwise.

When evangelicals oppose adoption by gay parents, my question is always, "Would you rather the baby be aborted?"

I largely agree with you (though not really that "human life" begins at conception).

I'm just not sure how the legal line should be drawn for abortions after the first few months. Who has he presumption or burden of proof when a decision to terminate is made for medical reasons? How serious does the medical reason need to be to justify termination under the law? When a medical judgment is implicated, is the government throwing doctors in jail? Pregnant women in jail? If there was incest but no rape, why is that a potential justification for a later termination?

At the end of the day, I am uncomfortable with politicians (who are again still predominantly older men) drawing these lines.

I am reminded that in many discussion regarding gender roles and equality, I often have to remind people that women are shorter, slower, and have less upper body strength than men, that women are the ones who bear children, and that it was not some sort of committee of old white men that decided this would be so.

(02-11-2021 09:44 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-11-2021 08:35 AM)MerseyOwl Wrote:  

(02-11-2021 12:29 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(02-10-2021 03:19 PM)mrbig Wrote:  The question is not whether an embryo is a developing human. It is when "life" starts.

Isn't the real question when it should be lawful to destroy it? That seems more important than what it is called.

One can believe that an embryo is a human life and still believe it is lawful to destroy it -- just as one can believe that it is lawful to destroy other indisputably human lives (enemy soldiers, traitors, murderers, those threatening imminent harm to oneself). Of course, the last example is one of the very few where the decision is left entirely to the individual -- and even then, the individual's decision is subject to post-facto review by the state. It seems entirely reasonable that people might be reluctant to recognize a category having no constraints whatsoever.

Sorry George, I cannot and will not group an unborn innocent child with enemy soldiers, traitors, murderers, those threatening imminent harm to oneself.

when you put it that way, it sure makes a lot of people on the left side of the aisle look bad, since they do.

They do? And who are these people on the left?