(02-11-2021 01:43 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-11-2021 01:28 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-11-2021 11:41 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-11-2021 11:18 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-11-2021 10:26 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  They do? And who are these people on the left?

Intentional obtuseness? Really?

Clearly, the people who would classify "innocent unborn children" in the same class (OK to kill) as murderers, etc., are mostly left wing/Democrat/liberals. If you want to argue otherwise, say so.

If you want specific names, try every Democrat in Congress. I think all the "Blue Dogs" are gone.

Do not take this as me taking a side in the abortion argument. I HAVE NO SIDE. It is more like watching a prizefight and saying "Ooh, the one in the black trunks just landed a haymaker."

Stop making comments that are overly generic and intentionally inflammatory, and I'll stop asking you to back them up.

You're making a leap that someone is saying an unborn child is in the same class as murderers, just because they oppose abortion restrictions.

It's not intentional obtuseness, it's asking you to be specific with your claim of the left classifying unborn children in the same way as murderers.

You keep saying you're not taking sides, but you seem to clearly take the side of trying to paint liberals who oppose abortion restrictions in the absolute most negative way you can, with rather incendiary claims. You seem to understand that the issue is clearly very complicated, but then you become reductive and try and say that the unidentified boogeyman of "a lot of people on the left" equate unborn children to murderers.

The classification is "humans legal to kill". The politicians decide who is on this list or not. I blame the left for having babies on this list, I blame the right for having murderers on this list.

It's always a battle between left and right as to who should be in the class and who should not. For example, the debate over SYG laws. The debate over shootings by officers. The debate over the death penalty. And yes, the debate over abortion.

Like all the other examples, the lawmakers have included young humans of a certain age in the class. OK with me. It would OK with me if they excluded them, too. neither side is purely good or bad. I am not going to vote for or against any candidate based on their position on this. I will, however, point out inanities and inconsistencies in the rationalizations given by one side or the other in defense of their favorite positions, and I do this for both abortion sides and for both death penalty sides. It seems that some people equate neutrality with silence. I do not. Seeing both sides and not choosing a side, what I do with regard to abortion, is way different from the ignoring of issues which some here find a reasonable excuse.

I identified them by group. You seem to want a list of names and addresses.

You're just mad because I am not a bobblehead going "Yup - what she said" to your issue.

I'm absolutely not mad that you aren't bobbing your head in agreement - I clearly haven't made the same type of comment to Mersey who clearly has a differing opinion to me.

I find blind platitudes in debates like this to be counterproductive and harmful to the conversation. You didn't even use a group, you used a really, really broad designation of a political spectrum.

Had you been critiquing a position taken by an identifiable group (say a specific position by Planned Parenthood) that would be one thing. Instead, you just took another opportunity to sling mud at "the left" in a debate that is rather complicated.

Perhaps I was wrong in assuming that most people in favor of abortion would be on the left and most people opposing it would be on the right. perhaps you could link me to research showing that political affiliation has no relation to position on this issue.

(02-11-2021 01:38 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Two things: the way you wrote your original post is confusing in the same way that a double negative is confusing. Sure, it's technically correct but can lead to confusion (which is why I brought up Big's response)

If it was unclear at all (which is a stretch), it was only so to people who read hastily, or poorly. Again, please read the text.

As for double negatives, you mean a sentence like this: "You...didn't say you empathically didn't believe Big to have said something like that"? Not the best sentence, but I took the time to understand it before reacting, and I readily figured it out -- even with the evidently erroneous "empathically".

(02-11-2021 01:38 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  It was not crystal clear what you were trying to say, as it's taken a few posts to do that.

But it was clear: I said from the outset what while I don't know whether Big has ever commented on infanticide, I presume he's against it. The "few posts" following essentially repeated these words to show that you and Big's reactions were unfounded. The fact that this repetition was required for YOU to understand the original text is your failing, not mine.

(02-11-2021 01:38 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  The other is that, while I see your point about how you don't know that Big has or hasn't said anything, you chose to make a really inflammatory examples as a way to argue to extreme. The risk of doing that is inflaming tensions when a post isn't crystal clear, especially on a forum that people browse during work.

Again, it was clear if you read it. It's not my fault that you and Big read it poorly.

More generally, before latching on to the most accusatory possible interpretation of a post in this forum, it seems reasonable that an intelligent reader would have the perspicacity to (1) read the post again, with care, and (2) presume good faith in the poster -- especially when the poster in question is one who is known to state things fairly precisely, and to be generally a good-faith guy. Yet here, you and Big failed to do EITHER -- and you insist that the fault lies with MY choices rather than your own?

(02-11-2021 01:38 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Probably best to ere on the side of caution.

By any rational measure, expressly saying that I presume Big is not comfortable with infanticide, even though I have no idea whether he has ever commented on the subject, IS erring on the side of caution.

By the way, I also took the time to figure out "ere". :)

(02-11-2021 01:38 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I'm sorry for misinterpreting your statement and appreciate the back and forth - I'll make a revision to the previous post.

Misinterpret you did, but thank you for your apology. It is welcome.

(02-11-2021 12:34 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(02-11-2021 12:19 PM)MerseyOwl Wrote:  When does a fetus become a "baby"?

I'm perplexed when pro-choice advocates announce they are going to have a "baby" or hold "baby showers".

How can they be sure?

Or are we going to a Clintonesque semantic exercise on the definition of "is"?

"going to have" is future tense, indicating they do not yet have a baby, but will in the future after birth. Baby showers people celebrate that they will be having a baby and mostly receive gifts for babies. The parents are not typically getting little outfits and diapers to use on their fetus. Not really any semantics needed, just basic English.

Good point. This must be why so many mothers-to-be refer to the thing inside them as babies-to-be.

All this reminds me of some of fun exchanges in another medium:

Me: "It is possible to support Black Lives Matter or be against police brutality and also believe that the National Anthem should not be used to call attention to one's particular cause. That is an entirely content-neutral view, and responding that 'But the particular cause is really important' does not logically rebut that view."
Leftist 1: "How can you defend policy brutality?"
Leftist 2: "Racist!"
Leftist 3: "Sexist!" (presumably because Leftist 1 was female)
Leftist 4: [unprintable]


Leftist 1: "Many Americans are afraid of you -- I don't mean people like you, I mean you personally."
Me: "I don't think people are afraid of me personally."
Leftist 1: "I didn't mean you personally, I meant people like you."
Leftist 2: "Quit parsing Leftist 1's words."

(02-11-2021 01:28 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-11-2021 11:41 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-11-2021 11:18 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-11-2021 10:26 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

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

Intentional obtuseness? Really?

Clearly, the people who would classify "innocent unborn children" in the same class (OK to kill) as murderers, etc., are mostly left wing/Democrat/liberals. If you want to argue otherwise, say so.

If you want specific names, try every Democrat in Congress. I think all the "Blue Dogs" are gone.

Do not take this as me taking a side in the abortion argument. I HAVE NO SIDE. It is more like watching a prizefight and saying "Ooh, the one in the black trunks just landed a haymaker."

Stop making comments that are overly generic and intentionally inflammatory, and I'll stop asking you to back them up.

You're making a leap that someone is saying an unborn child is in the same class as murderers, just because they oppose abortion restrictions.

It's not intentional obtuseness, it's asking you to be specific with your claim of the left classifying unborn children in the same way as murderers.

You keep saying you're not taking sides, but you seem to clearly take the side of trying to paint liberals who oppose abortion restrictions in the absolute most negative way you can, with rather incendiary claims. You seem to understand that the issue is clearly very complicated, but then you become reductive and try and say that the unidentified boogeyman of "a lot of people on the left" equate unborn children to murderers.

The classification is "humans legal to kill". The politicians decide who is on this list or not. I blame the left for having babies on this list, I blame the right for having murderers on this list.

I thought we were all in agreement that babies /= fetuses?

It is incredibly more inflammatory to phrase it like you did but I guess that was your point.

(02-11-2021 02:43 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(02-11-2021 01:28 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-11-2021 11:41 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-11-2021 11:18 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-11-2021 10:26 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  They do? And who are these people on the left?

Intentional obtuseness? Really?

Clearly, the people who would classify "innocent unborn children" in the same class (OK to kill) as murderers, etc., are mostly left wing/Democrat/liberals. If you want to argue otherwise, say so.

If you want specific names, try every Democrat in Congress. I think all the "Blue Dogs" are gone.

Do not take this as me taking a side in the abortion argument. I HAVE NO SIDE. It is more like watching a prizefight and saying "Ooh, the one in the black trunks just landed a haymaker."

Stop making comments that are overly generic and intentionally inflammatory, and I'll stop asking you to back them up.

You're making a leap that someone is saying an unborn child is in the same class as murderers, just because they oppose abortion restrictions.

It's not intentional obtuseness, it's asking you to be specific with your claim of the left classifying unborn children in the same way as murderers.

You keep saying you're not taking sides, but you seem to clearly take the side of trying to paint liberals who oppose abortion restrictions in the absolute most negative way you can, with rather incendiary claims. You seem to understand that the issue is clearly very complicated, but then you become reductive and try and say that the unidentified boogeyman of "a lot of people on the left" equate unborn children to murderers.

The classification is "humans legal to kill". The politicians decide who is on this list or not. I blame the left for having babies on this list, I blame the right for having murderers on this list.

I thought we were all in agreement that babies /= fetuses?

It is incredibly more inflammatory to phrase it like you did but I guess that was your point.

I for one did not take a position on that equation/inequality. I have been pretty clear all along that the terminology is less important than the philosophical view of whether it should be lawful to destroy them.

EVERYONE seems to choose the definition that suits their conclusion: E.g.:
"They are babies / humans, "therefore" it should be unlawful to destroy them"; or
"They are not babies / humans, "therefore" it should not be unlawful to do so."

But the "therefore" is misplaced, as the actual relationship between stated definition and stated conclusion is almost always the other way round.

On the other hand, a few folks here have said (perhaps not recently) taken the position that "They are babies / humans, but it should still be lawful to destroy them." The fact that this opinion is sincerely held by some intelligent people perhaps illustrated that the definitions are not the crux of the matter.

(02-11-2021 02:56 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(02-11-2021 02:43 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(02-11-2021 01:28 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-11-2021 11:41 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-11-2021 11:18 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Intentional obtuseness? Really?

Clearly, the people who would classify "innocent unborn children" in the same class (OK to kill) as murderers, etc., are mostly left wing/Democrat/liberals. If you want to argue otherwise, say so.

If you want specific names, try every Democrat in Congress. I think all the "Blue Dogs" are gone.

Do not take this as me taking a side in the abortion argument. I HAVE NO SIDE. It is more like watching a prizefight and saying "Ooh, the one in the black trunks just landed a haymaker."

Stop making comments that are overly generic and intentionally inflammatory, and I'll stop asking you to back them up.

You're making a leap that someone is saying an unborn child is in the same class as murderers, just because they oppose abortion restrictions.

It's not intentional obtuseness, it's asking you to be specific with your claim of the left classifying unborn children in the same way as murderers.

You keep saying you're not taking sides, but you seem to clearly take the side of trying to paint liberals who oppose abortion restrictions in the absolute most negative way you can, with rather incendiary claims. You seem to understand that the issue is clearly very complicated, but then you become reductive and try and say that the unidentified boogeyman of "a lot of people on the left" equate unborn children to murderers.

The classification is "humans legal to kill". The politicians decide who is on this list or not. I blame the left for having babies on this list, I blame the right for having murderers on this list.

I thought we were all in agreement that babies /= fetuses?

It is incredibly more inflammatory to phrase it like you did but I guess that was your point.

I for one did not take a position on that equation/inequality. I have been pretty clear all along that the terminology is less important than the philosophical view of whether it should be lawful to destroy them.

EVERYONE seems to choose the definition that suits their conclusion: E.g.:
"They are babies / humans, "therefore" it should be unlawful to destroy them"; or
"They are not babies / humans, "therefore" it should not be unlawful to do so."

But the "therefore" is misplaced, as the actual relationship between stated definition and stated conclusion is almost always the other way round.

On the other hand, a few folks here have said (perhaps not recently) taken the position that "They are babies / humans, but it should still be lawful to destroy them." The fact that this opinion is sincerely held by some intelligent people perhaps illustrated that the definitions are not the crux of the matter.

WRT the bolded, I don't follow.

Regarding "inflammatory": a friend once observed that nothing is more "inflammatory" to people than expressing oneself dispassionately on something their passionate about. :)

(02-11-2021 02:59 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  Regarding "inflammatory": a friend once observed that nothing is more "inflammatory" to people than expressing oneself dispassionately on something their passionate about. :)

I took the time to figure out what you meant by "their"!

(02-11-2021 01:52 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-11-2021 01:43 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-11-2021 01:28 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-11-2021 11:41 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-11-2021 11:18 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Intentional obtuseness? Really?

Clearly, the people who would classify "innocent unborn children" in the same class (OK to kill) as murderers, etc., are mostly left wing/Democrat/liberals. If you want to argue otherwise, say so.

If you want specific names, try every Democrat in Congress. I think all the "Blue Dogs" are gone.

Do not take this as me taking a side in the abortion argument. I HAVE NO SIDE. It is more like watching a prizefight and saying "Ooh, the one in the black trunks just landed a haymaker."

Stop making comments that are overly generic and intentionally inflammatory, and I'll stop asking you to back them up.

You're making a leap that someone is saying an unborn child is in the same class as murderers, just because they oppose abortion restrictions.

It's not intentional obtuseness, it's asking you to be specific with your claim of the left classifying unborn children in the same way as murderers.

You keep saying you're not taking sides, but you seem to clearly take the side of trying to paint liberals who oppose abortion restrictions in the absolute most negative way you can, with rather incendiary claims. You seem to understand that the issue is clearly very complicated, but then you become reductive and try and say that the unidentified boogeyman of "a lot of people on the left" equate unborn children to murderers.

The classification is "humans legal to kill". The politicians decide who is on this list or not. I blame the left for having babies on this list, I blame the right for having murderers on this list.

It's always a battle between left and right as to who should be in the class and who should not. For example, the debate over SYG laws. The debate over shootings by officers. The debate over the death penalty. And yes, the debate over abortion.

Like all the other examples, the lawmakers have included young humans of a certain age in the class. OK with me. It would OK with me if they excluded them, too. neither side is purely good or bad. I am not going to vote for or against any candidate based on their position on this. I will, however, point out inanities and inconsistencies in the rationalizations given by one side or the other in defense of their favorite positions, and I do this for both abortion sides and for both death penalty sides. It seems that some people equate neutrality with silence. I do not. Seeing both sides and not choosing a side, what I do with regard to abortion, is way different from the ignoring of issues which some here find a reasonable excuse.

I identified them by group. You seem to want a list of names and addresses.

You're just mad because I am not a bobblehead going "Yup - what she said" to your issue.

I'm absolutely not mad that you aren't bobbing your head in agreement - I clearly haven't made the same type of comment to Mersey who clearly has a differing opinion to me.

I find blind platitudes in debates like this to be counterproductive and harmful to the conversation. You didn't even use a group, you used a really, really broad designation of a political spectrum.

Had you been critiquing a position taken by an identifiable group (say a specific position by Planned Parenthood) that would be one thing. Instead, you just took another opportunity to sling mud at "the left" in a debate that is rather complicated.

Perhaps I was wrong in assuming that most people in favor of abortion would be on the left and most people opposing it would be on the right. perhaps you could link me to research showing that political affiliation has no relation to position on this issue.

I didn't think we were talking about positions on the legality of abortion, but whether or not people would consider unborn children to be of the same category as murderers.

That's a very reductive stance to take. And it's likely a stance taken to try to belittle someone who supports abortion rights.

(02-11-2021 03:03 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(02-11-2021 02:59 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  Regarding "inflammatory": a friend once observed that nothing is more "inflammatory" to people than expressing oneself dispassionately on something their passionate about. :)

I took the time to figure out what you meant by "their"!

Ouch! And darn it! :)

(02-11-2021 02:43 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(02-11-2021 01:28 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-11-2021 11:41 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-11-2021 11:18 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-11-2021 10:26 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  They do? And who are these people on the left?

Intentional obtuseness? Really?

Clearly, the people who would classify "innocent unborn children" in the same class (OK to kill) as murderers, etc., are mostly left wing/Democrat/liberals. If you want to argue otherwise, say so.

If you want specific names, try every Democrat in Congress. I think all the "Blue Dogs" are gone.

Do not take this as me taking a side in the abortion argument. I HAVE NO SIDE. It is more like watching a prizefight and saying "Ooh, the one in the black trunks just landed a haymaker."

Stop making comments that are overly generic and intentionally inflammatory, and I'll stop asking you to back them up.

You're making a leap that someone is saying an unborn child is in the same class as murderers, just because they oppose abortion restrictions.

It's not intentional obtuseness, it's asking you to be specific with your claim of the left classifying unborn children in the same way as murderers.

You keep saying you're not taking sides, but you seem to clearly take the side of trying to paint liberals who oppose abortion restrictions in the absolute most negative way you can, with rather incendiary claims. You seem to understand that the issue is clearly very complicated, but then you become reductive and try and say that the unidentified boogeyman of "a lot of people on the left" equate unborn children to murderers.

The classification is "humans legal to kill". The politicians decide who is on this list or not. I blame the left for having babies on this list, I blame the right for having murderers on this list.

I thought we were all in agreement that babies /= fetuses?

It is incredibly more inflammatory to phrase it like you did but I guess that was your point.

For me, babies /= fetuses in the same way teenagers /= toddlers.

All four are just different stages in the development of a human being from the moment conception to adulthood, at the least, and perhaps old age.

So if fetuses/babies/children/whatever designation is applied (a rose by any other name...) are on the list of OK to Kill, who should we give most of the credit to?

(02-11-2021 02:59 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

georgewebb Wrote:EVERYONE seems to choose the definition that suits their conclusion: E.g.:
"They are babies / humans, "therefore" it should be unlawful to destroy them"; or
"They are not babies / humans, "therefore" it should not be unlawful to do so."

But the "therefore" is misplaced, as the actual relationship between stated definition and stated conclusion is almost always the other way round.

WRT the bolded, I don't follow.

In theory, "X therefore Y" usually means that because of X, Y is true.
But my sense has long been that on this topic in particular, that is not how most thinking actually takes place. Rather, most people probably start from the belief that Y is true, and then adopt definition X in order to justify conclusion Y. So the actual mental process that's going on is far closer to "Y therefore X" than "X therefore Y".

For those of you that consider a fertilized egg a human (or a fetus, or a baby)... do you consider the disposal of embryos used for IVF to be equally problematic as a first term abortion? Their DNA will identify as human even though they are not viable without a successful implantation into a woman's uterus.

(02-11-2021 03:09 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-11-2021 02:43 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(02-11-2021 01:28 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-11-2021 11:41 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-11-2021 11:18 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Intentional obtuseness? Really?

Clearly, the people who would classify "innocent unborn children" in the same class (OK to kill) as murderers, etc., are mostly left wing/Democrat/liberals. If you want to argue otherwise, say so.

If you want specific names, try every Democrat in Congress. I think all the "Blue Dogs" are gone.

Do not take this as me taking a side in the abortion argument. I HAVE NO SIDE. It is more like watching a prizefight and saying "Ooh, the one in the black trunks just landed a haymaker."

Stop making comments that are overly generic and intentionally inflammatory, and I'll stop asking you to back them up.

You're making a leap that someone is saying an unborn child is in the same class as murderers, just because they oppose abortion restrictions.

It's not intentional obtuseness, it's asking you to be specific with your claim of the left classifying unborn children in the same way as murderers.

You keep saying you're not taking sides, but you seem to clearly take the side of trying to paint liberals who oppose abortion restrictions in the absolute most negative way you can, with rather incendiary claims. You seem to understand that the issue is clearly very complicated, but then you become reductive and try and say that the unidentified boogeyman of "a lot of people on the left" equate unborn children to murderers.

The classification is "humans legal to kill". The politicians decide who is on this list or not. I blame the left for having babies on this list, I blame the right for having murderers on this list.

I thought we were all in agreement that babies /= fetuses?

It is incredibly more inflammatory to phrase it like you did but I guess that was your point.

For me, babies /= fetuses in the same way teenagers /= toddlers.

All four are just different stages in the development of a human being from the moment conception to adulthood, at the least, and perhaps old age.

So if fetuses/babies/children/whatever designation is applied (a rose by any other name...) are on the list of OK to Kill, who should we give most of the credit to?

Where are you going with this? Are you looking for us to say "OO... left-wingers are more likely to support a woman's right to choose abortion rather than right-wingers."? Is that what you are hoping for? If so... I agree with the quoted. What's the point? Isn't this obvious?

(02-11-2021 03:12 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  For those of you that consider a fertilized egg a human (or a fetus, or a baby)... do you consider the disposal of embryos used for IVF to be equally problematic as a first term abortion? Their DNA will identify as human even though they are not viable without a successful implantation into a woman's uterus.

Again, is the definition really critical?
A person who does NOT consider a fertilized egg to be a human/fetus/baby could still consider disposal of IVF embryos less problematic than first-term abortion (which is to say, first-term abortion MORE problematic than disposal of IVF embryos). In fact, I suspect that's exactly how most people would feel.

(02-11-2021 03:14 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(02-11-2021 03:12 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  For those of you that consider a fertilized egg a human (or a fetus, or a baby)... do you consider the disposal of embryos used for IVF to be equally problematic as a first term abortion? Their DNA will identify as human even though they are not viable without a successful implantation into a woman's uterus.

Again, is the definition really critical?
A person who does NOT consider a fertilized egg to be a human/fetus/baby could still consider disposal of IVF embryos less problematic than first-term abortion. In fact, I suspect that's exactly how most people would feel.

I guess I'm interested in those here that feel that the moment the sperm unites successfully with an egg then a "human" is created and therefore an abortion is tantamount to murdering a person. For those that hold this opinion (I think there are some here?) does IVF present equal concerns to them.

Rice93:

Do you think an unimplanted IVF embryo and an embryo in the womb are equivalent? Or is destroying one more problematic than destroying another?

(02-11-2021 03:28 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  Rice93:

Do you think an unimplanted IVF embryo and an embryo in the womb are equivalent? Or is destroying one more problematic than destroying another?

I would say it is more problematic to destroy one in the womb than one that is unimplanted. I would also say 2nd term abortion is more problematic than 1st and same goes for 3rd term. I don't have any idea where to put "the line" though - exactly where is it OK? It's clearly a personal decision... I think if I had an unimplanted embryo I could accept having it destroyed while I would not chose an abortion for myself and my partner (when this discussion was actually relevant to my stage in life).

Some may make the argument that a DNA sample = human so it is all on the same level. I'm interested to see if some people feel this way.

(02-11-2021 01:40 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(02-11-2021 11:47 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(02-11-2021 11:18 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-11-2021 08:35 AM)MerseyOwl Wrote:  Sorry George, I cannot and will not group an unborn innocent child with enemy soldiers, traitors, murderers, those threatening imminent harm to oneself.

Clearly, the people who would classify "innocent unborn children" in the same class (OK to kill) as murderers, etc., are mostly left wing/Democrat/liberals. If you want to argue otherwise, say so.

Medically/scientifically, is there such a thing as an "unborn child"? I thought by pretty much all definitions, childhood starts at birth and then depending on the definition ends at puberty or adulthood? That terms sounds like a misnomer and/or contradiction.

Again, the important question is not how it is denoted, but whether it should be lawful to destroy it. The debate over what it should be called seems to put the rhetorical cart before the philosophical horse.

(Uh oh -- perhaps now I will be accused of calling Big a horse.)

Sorry George, but for me language is important. You eluded to that when you said 'denoted'. Denotation is precise; connotation not so much.

Not everyone is precise in their use of words. The common folk beyond the hedges mostly fall into this category.

Rice93:"I thought we were all in agreement that babies /= fetuses?"

Uh, no. And I think you find the majority of common folk would not think so either.

Language is emotive just ask any propagandist:
"I'm have no problem if one choses to abort a fetus" versus "I'm have no problem if one choses to abort a baby". Use of the word fetus is intentional and meant to dehumanize the unborn. It's is 'easier' lawfully destroy something that isn't human.