(02-11-2021 03:37 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(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.

To the bolded, that is what drives my position of being firmly against making abortion completely illegal. But because it is so contentious and complicated, there does need to be some limitation applied by the state, as I think there is a societal interest of legally discouraging certain abortions.

Trying to find where that legal line of making abortion illegal, is tough. But I think it clearly doesn't fall at either ends of the fertilization spectrum.

I prefer a pragmatic approach that allows for legal abortions (with restrictions) and focuses on supporting things that will reduce the frequency of abortions, like sex education, contraception availability, less burdensome adoptions, etc.

(02-11-2021 03:04 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(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:  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.

I consider them both to be in the category of "human beings". isn't this where we started?

(02-11-2021 03:37 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(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).

A personal line ("When should I do nor not do X?") may be a personal decision, but a legal line ("When should it be lawful to do or not do X?") is, by definition, NOT a personal decision. And the legal line is (naturally) what the policy debate is all about.

And you DO seem to have an idea where to put the legal line -- you seem pretty clear that it should be no earlier than birth.

Is that your belief? If so, it's a reasonable and certainly popular belief, but please don't pretend that you've somehow avoided drawing a legal line. You have very definitely drawn one, at a very definite point.

(02-11-2021 03:43 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  To the bolded, that is what drives my position of being firmly against making abortion completely illegal. But because it is so contentious and complicated, there does need to be some limitation applied by the state, as I think there is a societal interest of legally discouraging certain abortions.

Trying to find where that legal line of making abortion illegal, is tough. But I think it clearly doesn't fall at either ends of the fertilization spectrum.

I prefer a pragmatic approach that allows for legal abortions (with restrictions) and focuses on supporting things that will reduce the frequency of abortions, like sex education, contraception availability, less burdensome adoptions, etc.

Fie! This is all too reasonable and pragmatic. No place for that! :)

I will note, however, that these eminently reasonable policy conclusions don't seem to hinge on definitions -- a point I've been making all along.

(02-11-2021 03:18 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(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.

The fertilized egg in the womb (attached to the uterine wall) is not the same as a fertilized egg in a cryogenic freezer.

There are moral and ethical considerations that separate the two. Not every embryo created in IVF will successfully attach to the uterine wall and continue to develop.

But forcibly detaching an embryo from the uterine wall or causing the uterine wall to shed in order to end a pregnancy is abortion.

(02-11-2021 12:57 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  A messed up thing for ME to write?
MY post crossed some lines?
LIBERAL posters feel the need to take a break?

I expressly said that I presumed Big was NOT comfortable with killing 2-year-olds -- and Big and Lad both fly off the handle, accusing me making exactly the opposite allegation.

Can't you guys READ?????

George. You have met me and we have spoken on the phone. This isn't the kind of thing you need to put in writing. The only reason to "presume" something like this is some misguided use of sarcasm or something else. And it is gross under the circumstances in which you employed it. You are being intentionally inflammatory and provocative in a way that i found insulting.

(02-11-2021 01:13 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  Back to the operative point: Big said he is not comfortable with "politicians" deciding when the act is legal. But it does not seem that he was being honest. Rather it seems he is completely comfortable with politicians drawing the line, as long as they draw it exactly where he wants it to be -- at birth, not before, not after.

That's certainly a popular view in this country and around the world.

Other views are that the law should draw the line somewhere before birth, or somewhere after. The former is also a popular view in this country and around the world. The latter, while far less popular, is certainly not unknown, either presently or historically.

In the more substantive stuff that I deleted, I made the point that: (1) you don't actually need laws for everything (look at me, I'm a libertarian?!?); and (2) the politicians can just enact laws based on what scientists/doctors recommend, rather than feeling the need to insert their own morality into the conversation. Why not ask the American Board of Pediatrics and American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology to make a joint recommendation, rather than leaving it to a bunch of politicians. The answer they come up with will not be perfect for everyone, but it will likely be better then what most politicians come up with.

(02-11-2021 05:08 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(02-11-2021 01:13 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  Back to the operative point: Big said he is not comfortable with "politicians" deciding when the act is legal. But it does not seem that he was being honest. Rather it seems he is completely comfortable with politicians drawing the line, as long as they draw it exactly where he wants it to be -- at birth, not before, not after.

That's certainly a popular view in this country and around the world.

Other views are that the law should draw the line somewhere before birth, or somewhere after. The former is also a popular view in this country and around the world. The latter, while far less popular, is certainly not unknown, either presently or historically.

In the more substantive stuff that I deleted, I made the point that: (1) you don't actually need laws for everything (look at me, I'm a libertarian?!?); and (2) the politicians can just enact laws based on what scientists/doctors recommend, rather than feeling the need to insert their own morality into the conversation. Why not ask the American Board of Pediatrics and American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology to make a joint recommendation, rather than leaving it to a bunch of politicians. The answer they come up with will not be perfect for everyone, but it will likely be better then what most politicians come up with.

That 'leaving it to the xxx' is reasonable. Except, you forget, that progressives would never do it in that manner. Further, they did not do it in that manner, and further would *never* think of it in that manner.

Instead, the manner that was chosen was to create out of thin air a right to abortion based somehow on the Constitution. Not just a right, a *fundamental* right.

I mean, why take the years to forge a political solution when you can create a magical fundamental right to something with gossamer wings insto presto.

(02-11-2021 05:05 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(02-11-2021 12:57 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  A messed up thing for ME to write?
MY post crossed some lines?
LIBERAL posters feel the need to take a break?

I expressly said that I presumed Big was NOT comfortable with killing 2-year-olds -- and Big and Lad both fly off the handle, accusing me making exactly the opposite allegation.

Can't you guys READ?????

George. You have met me and we have spoken on the phone. This isn't the kind of thing you need to put in writing. The only reason to "presume" something like this is some misguided use of sarcasm or something else. And it is gross under the circumstances in which you employed it. You are being intentionally inflammatory and provocative in a way that i found insulting.

Big. You have met me and we have spoken on the phone. I think I even bought you dinner. There is nothing improper in the words I wrote, and you can't point to anything that is improper about them -- quite the opposite, for what I wrote expressly makes clear that I did not accuse you of supporting infanticide. Would you honestly rather that I had left that possibility open? If you think my doing so was intended to be sarcastic (or a vague "something else", whatever that means), you're as wrong as you can be.

And honestly, I don't see how you could or why you would jump to such a nonliteral and histrionic conclusion. As I explained to Lad: 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 failed to do EITHER.

Instead, your reading of what I wrote -- and your insistence that your reading was correct -- is so counter-intuitive that it could reasonably be considered intentionally offense-seeking in a way I find insulting.

In sum:
- I expressly said I did not accuse Big of supporting infanticide -- and he is outraged.
- Big expressly DID accuse me of so accusing him -- and while I am angry, I am more confused than anything else.

(02-11-2021 01:24 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  Again, please read the words I wrote. I expressly said that I presume Big is not comfortable killing 2-year-olds. Do you think that was an outlandish presumption?
...
To say that I "emphatically believe Big has said he is against infanticide" would be untrue, because I honestly have no idea whether he's actually said such a thing. In fact, MOST people have probably never said such a thing, because the topic doesn't often come up. That's why I expressly said that I am NOT sure whether he's ever said such a thing.

Why did you feel the need to state this at all or as a presumption. Again. We have met and talked on the phone. There is no way in the world you could possibly believe I am ok with the killing of 0-2 year old children. The fact that you wouldn't state such as fact is bizarre and offensive.

(02-11-2021 01:24 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  The hostility of Big's reaction does not establish its validity -- nor does your claimed befuddlement!

You guys should be ashamed of yourselves, presuming you can feel shame.

I was clearly offended by what you wrote. I'm surprised this is the hill you want to hold so dearly.

(02-11-2021 05:08 PM)mrbig Wrote:  In the more substantive stuff that I deleted, I made the point that: (1) you don't actually need laws for everything (look at me, I'm a libertarian?!?);

What is the difference between advocating "there should be no laws that prohibit X" and advocating "there should be a law that says X shall not be prohibited"? My sense is that your view is the former, and since that is equivalent to the latter, it seems you believe that on this topic there SHOULD be a particular law -- the one that you like.

Many Constitutional strict constructionists would absolutely agree that we don't need a constitutional law on abortion, as it is not a constitutional matter. I suspect you would disagree with that view.

(02-11-2021 05:08 PM)mrbig Wrote:  ...and (2) the politicians can just enact laws based on what scientists/doctors recommend, rather than feeling the need to insert their own morality into the conversation. Why not ask the American Board of Pediatrics and American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology to make a joint recommendation, rather than leaving it to a bunch of politicians. The answer they come up with will not be perfect for everyone, but it will likely be better then what most politicians come up with.

Is the question of what should be lawful really a scientific/medical question?

(02-11-2021 01:38 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  In answer to the question in the first paragraph, it seems to me that they take breaks to avoid debate.

I take breaks when people are a$$holes and/or when I feel myself turning into an a$$hole.

(02-11-2021 01:38 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  some questions that pro-abortion people like to avoid is how an age or condition is used to define when it is legal to take a human life and when it is not. For example, sometimes the "viability" test is used, but do we actually know when that is? Is it the 178th day of gestation, or the 180th? Seems to be a moving target. while we are arbitrarily setting dates, why is a date after birth different from a date before birth? Is it because the child is more human once out of the womb? Or perhaps is only human if out of the womb?

You seem to be making my point that these kinds of decisions are better left for doctors than politicians. Thank you.

(02-11-2021 05:43 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(02-11-2021 01:24 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  Again, please read the words I wrote. I expressly said that I presume Big is not comfortable killing 2-year-olds. Do you think that was an outlandish presumption?
...
To say that I "emphatically believe Big has said he is against infanticide" would be untrue, because I honestly have no idea whether he's actually said such a thing. In fact, MOST people have probably never said such a thing, because the topic doesn't often come up. That's why I expressly said that I am NOT sure whether he's ever said such a thing.

Why did you feel the need to state this at all or as a presumption. Again. We have met and talked on the phone. There is no way in the world you could possibly believe I am ok with the killing of 0-2 year old children. The fact that you wouldn't state such as fact is bizarre and offensive.

But that's exactly what I did! I expressly stated that even though I don't know you to have ever spoken on the subject, I presume you're not comfortable with it. I did exactly what you claim I didn't do, and I did not do exactly what you claim I did.

(02-11-2021 05:43 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(02-11-2021 01:24 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  The hostility of Big's reaction does not establish its validity -- nor does your claimed befuddlement!

You guys should be ashamed of yourselves, presuming you can feel shame.

I was clearly offended by what you wrote. I'm surprised this is the hill you want to hold so dearly.

You were, but your offense seems completely irrational, and your actions in response -- the professions of outrage, the maximum reputation knock -- were uncalled for.

I'm surprised this is the hill you want to hold so dearly. Again, as I explained to Lad: 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. Particularly when, as you've said a couple times, the poster is someone you've broken bread with.

(02-11-2021 05:46 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(02-11-2021 01:38 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  In answer to the question in the first paragraph, it seems to me that they take breaks to avoid debate.

I take breaks when people are a$$holes and/or when I feel myself turning into an a$$hole.

(02-11-2021 01:38 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  some questions that pro-abortion people like to avoid is how an age or condition is used to define when it is legal to take a human life and when it is not. For example, sometimes the "viability" test is used, but do we actually know when that is? Is it the 178th day of gestation, or the 180th? Seems to be a moving target. while we are arbitrarily setting dates, why is a date after birth different from a date before birth? Is it because the child is more human once out of the womb? Or perhaps is only human if out of the womb?

You seem to be making my point that these kinds of decisions are better left for doctors than politicians. Thank you.

Which decision -- the decision of when a particular medical status exists, or the decision of whether a particular medical status should be the determinant of lawfulness?

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

(02-11-2021 11:47 AM)mrbig Wrote:  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.

This would be a good question to ask your wife. let me know what she says.

My wife says the correct nomenclature is embryo or fetus (or other similar terms based on the stage of gestation). She agrees that "child" means after birth and so "unborn child" does not really make sense (even though obviously she and I and others know why people use that term and what you mean by that term).

(02-11-2021 03:18 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  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 killing, legally a person.

corrected to show my actual belief, which was not as represented, if I was included in the "those here".

Quote: For those that hold this opinion (I think there are some here?) does IVF present equal concerns to them.

Very intriguing question!!!!

My opinion is that the frozen fertilized egg is a human who is frozen, just as we may do someday to adults to enable people to travel through space to distant worlds.

If a a frozen adult human is still human while frozen, so is the fertilized egg. If some of the adults do not survive their journey, that is similar to some frozen eggs not surviving theirs.

Freezing, peril, danger, whatever does not change humans to nonhuman.

As we expand our medical and scientific horizons, more and more questions like this will have to be answered.

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

(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.

You started with some science-based comments that tried to make things crystal clear when they really aren't. If you want to vacillate between medical/science terms and common parlance, it will make it more difficult to have a conversation.

(02-11-2021 05:51 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  You were, but your offense seems completely irrational, and your actions in response -- the professions of outrage, the maximum reputation knock -- were uncalled for.

edit - deleted

(02-11-2021 01:54 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  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?
...
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.

For the record, I read your post many many times before posting a response. I decided to significantly temper my initial response, even though I could not discern a good faith reason for writing what you did as you did.

(02-11-2021 06:22 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

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

(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.

You started with some science-based comments that tried to make things crystal clear when they really aren't. If you want to vacillate between medical/science terms and common parlance, it will make it more difficult to have a conversation.

YOU were talking about people giving gifts, so I talked about what people think of as a baby, both before and after birth. I know when my wife was pregnant, I never asked her how the fetus was doing today - is the fetus kicking a lot today, hon? She never referred to it as a fetus - only as the baby. Mu daughter-in-law knew the sex of her babies, so they had names picked out and referred to the person inside by name.

This seems to be the common way of thinking. Was it different when your wife was pregnant?

Who here that has kids did not refer to them as babies before they were born?

And WHY is it so important to the Three Amigos that I declare them nonhuman?

OO - You had some posts that sounded like you were trying to stick to medicine/science or maybe legal definitions. I don't think "unborn child" makes a lick of sense in those types of discussions. I'm fine with water cooler talk as well, I just didn't think that was how you were talking with your earlier comments. I'm not a stickler on the language if we're just chatting. I am more of a stickler if we are pretending to have a conversation about either medicine/science or law because then precise terms are more important.

All - I apologize for the way I handled feeling insulted by George's comment. Because we know each other, I really should have just sent him a message to hash things out with him (which we did) instead of dragging it into the public space. Not sure why I felt the need to derail my own thread, regardless of whether my feeling offended was justified or not. Hindsight is 2020, but hopefully no year is as bad as 2020...