(05-11-2022 11:36 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-11-2022 03:15 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-11-2022 02:46 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-11-2022 02:25 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-11-2022 02:00 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Being a butterfly or a caterpillar doesn't detract from that organism being of z species. Or alive.

A fetus is still both alive, and if a species

A human fetus, a human embryo, a human zygote, znd a full grown human ate all still alive, and all still human.

But that wasn’t the comment I was responding to - it was when a fetus became a “child” or if it was a “child” from fertilization.

IMO, it becomes a child at fertilization, and everything after that is a stage of development on the way to being an adult human.

A better question is when does it stop being a child? 18? Why that number? It used to be much lower. Of course, it also used to be 21. Is either of those when it suddenly becomes viable to live on its own?

I knew a man who thought like that. He kicked his son out of the house on his 18th birthday. The kid was still in high school.

Yep - I disagree with that perspective, but like I said, it’s our prerogatives to do so.

I think comparing something that’s more scientific (child vs fertilized egg/fetus/etc.) and based primarily off of developmental stages to something that is a legal construct, is a tough one and not necessarily apt. And it’s definitely not apt to compare viability of literally surviving with living independently.

But in that vein, I don’t know if there are perfect answers to setting any line when it comes to age and legal standings. There are always pros and cons, and I think it’s best is all sides recognized that and did not demonize or belittle others who disagreed with where that line was set.

I have tried to present MY views. Note the usage of "IMO". If anybody thinks I demonizing their views I apologize. It was not my intent. However I do think that defining certain stages as not-human or not-child is just using euphemisms to fool oneself, much like the Nazis found justification in defining Jews as sub-human. JMHO

OO - take a step back and look at what you just wrote.

You just said people like myself, who are more apt to call something a fetus are akin to Nazis. How is that not demonizing the other side?

I personally would have no issue categorizing a fetus as a human, but labeling it a child already adds a lot of connotations that don’t seem appropriate. Even more so when it is just a fertilized egg.

(05-12-2022 12:49 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-11-2022 11:36 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-11-2022 03:15 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-11-2022 02:46 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-11-2022 02:25 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  But that wasn’t the comment I was responding to - it was when a fetus became a “child” or if it was a “child” from fertilization.

IMO, it becomes a child at fertilization, and everything after that is a stage of development on the way to being an adult human.

A better question is when does it stop being a child? 18? Why that number? It used to be much lower. Of course, it also used to be 21. Is either of those when it suddenly becomes viable to live on its own?

I knew a man who thought like that. He kicked his son out of the house on his 18th birthday. The kid was still in high school.

Yep - I disagree with that perspective, but like I said, it’s our prerogatives to do so.

I think comparing something that’s more scientific (child vs fertilized egg/fetus/etc.) and based primarily off of developmental stages to something that is a legal construct, is a tough one and not necessarily apt. And it’s definitely not apt to compare viability of literally surviving with living independently.

But in that vein, I don’t know if there are perfect answers to setting any line when it comes to age and legal standings. There are always pros and cons, and I think it’s best is all sides recognized that and did not demonize or belittle others who disagreed with where that line was set.

I have tried to present MY views. Note the usage of "IMO". If anybody thinks I demonizing their views I apologize. It was not my intent. However I do think that defining certain stages as not-human or not-child is just using euphemisms to fool oneself, much like the Nazis found justification in defining Jews as sub-human. JMHO

OO - take a step back and look at what you just wrote.

You just said people like myself, who are more apt to call something a fetus are akin to Nazis. How is that not demonizing the other side?

I personally would have no issue categorizing a fetus as a human, but labeling it a child already adds a lot of connotations that don’t seem appropriate. Even more so when it is just a fertilized egg.

yeah, I thought that would be misunderstood when I wrote it.

But we humans have a history of dividing ourselves into "us" and "them", and generally it is not an offense or a lesser offense to do things to "them". whether these divisions are between Zulu/Bantu, Apache/Arapahoe, Hutu/Tutsi, Aryan/Jew, White/black, Japanese/Korean, and on and on, doesn't matter. What matters is the mindset that killing "X" is somehow different from killing a real live human like people in the "us" class.

Just saying people play mind games to differentiate. Many primitive tribes felt like any outsider was to be killed immediately. In a few places, this attitude persists. For example, North Sentinel Island.

"The Sentinelese have repeatedly attacked approaching vessels. Such attacks have resulted in the deaths of two fishermen in 2006 and an American Christian missionary, John Allen Chau in 2018."

The nazis soothed their consciences by defining the Jews as "not the same", in fact, lesser. Same has been done in this continent regarding Chinese or natives.

The point is, many of us use alternate classifications to ease our discomfort. Much easier to terminate, rather than kill, a fetus, rather than a child, even though in either case it signals the end to existence of some...thing(?) that if left alone would someday become a high school graduate.

Ergo, the mini-whirlwind over calling it a child. Of course, nobody wants to kill a child. Much better to terminate a fetus. Way different.

A rose by any other name...

If you take your dog to the vet and abort their litter, they are still puppies.

The fact that many of us, including nazis and non-nazis, have fallen into this way of thinking in no way means we embrace nazi philosophy, any more than it means we embrace North Sentinelese thinking. I was referring to the practice of changing the name/classification of something to make an action against it more palatable. For some reason, I have more trouble explaining this concept to liberals, who continue to insist it is not a child, it is a (something that is not a child).

To be perfectly clear, I am accusing anybody pro or anti of being nazis, or nazi sympathizers, just of sharing a common human way of looking at things, a way shared with nearly every human being who has ever existed.

Also to be clear, I support the right of women to kill their children control their reproduction. See how just changing the terms makes it more/less palatable?

(05-12-2022 07:12 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-12-2022 12:49 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-11-2022 11:36 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-11-2022 03:15 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-11-2022 02:46 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  IMO, it becomes a child at fertilization, and everything after that is a stage of development on the way to being an adult human.

A better question is when does it stop being a child? 18? Why that number? It used to be much lower. Of course, it also used to be 21. Is either of those when it suddenly becomes viable to live on its own?

I knew a man who thought like that. He kicked his son out of the house on his 18th birthday. The kid was still in high school.

Yep - I disagree with that perspective, but like I said, it’s our prerogatives to do so.

I think comparing something that’s more scientific (child vs fertilized egg/fetus/etc.) and based primarily off of developmental stages to something that is a legal construct, is a tough one and not necessarily apt. And it’s definitely not apt to compare viability of literally surviving with living independently.

But in that vein, I don’t know if there are perfect answers to setting any line when it comes to age and legal standings. There are always pros and cons, and I think it’s best is all sides recognized that and did not demonize or belittle others who disagreed with where that line was set.

I have tried to present MY views. Note the usage of "IMO". If anybody thinks I demonizing their views I apologize. It was not my intent. However I do think that defining certain stages as not-human or not-child is just using euphemisms to fool oneself, much like the Nazis found justification in defining Jews as sub-human. JMHO

OO - take a step back and look at what you just wrote.

You just said people like myself, who are more apt to call something a fetus are akin to Nazis. How is that not demonizing the other side?

I personally would have no issue categorizing a fetus as a human, but labeling it a child already adds a lot of connotations that don’t seem appropriate. Even more so when it is just a fertilized egg.

yeah, I thought that would be misunderstood when I wrote it.

But we humans have a history of dividing ourselves into "us" and "them", and generally it is not an offense or a lesser offense to do things to "them". whether these divisions are between Zulu/Bantu, Apache/Arapahoe, Hutu/Tutsi, Aryan/Jew, White/black, Japanese/Korean, and on and on, doesn't matter. What matters is the mindset that killing "X" is somehow different from killing a real live human like people in the "us" class.

Just saying people play mind games to differentiate. Many primitive tribes felt like any outsider was to be killed immediately. In a few places, this attitude persists. For example, North Sentinel Island.

"The Sentinelese have repeatedly attacked approaching vessels. Such attacks have resulted in the deaths of two fishermen in 2006 and an American Christian missionary, John Allen Chau in 2018."

The nazis soothed their consciences by defining the Jews as "not the same", in fact, lesser. Same has been done in this continent regarding Chinese or natives.

The point is, many of us use alternate classifications to ease our discomfort. Much easier to terminate, rather than kill, a fetus, rather than a child, even though in either case it signals the end to existence of some...thing(?) that if left alone would someday become a high school graduate.

Ergo, the mini-whirlwind over calling it a child. Of course, nobody wants to kill a child. Much better to terminate a fetus. Way different.

A rose by any other name...

If you take your dog to the vet and abort their litter, they are still puppies.

The fact that many of us, including nazis and non-nazis, have fallen into this way of thinking in no way means we embrace nazi philosophy, any more than it means we embrace North Sentinelese thinking. I was referring to the practice of changing the name/classification of something to make an action against it more palatable. For some reason, I have more trouble explaining this concept to liberals, who continue to insist it is not a child, it is a (something that is not a child).

To be perfectly clear, I am accusing anybody pro or anti of being nazis, or nazi sympathizers, just of sharing a common human way of looking at things, a way shared with nearly every human being who has ever existed.

Also to be clear, I support the right of women to kill their children control their reproduction. See how just changing the terms makes it more/less palatable?

Pro-tip: if you don't want people to misunderstand you with respect to comparing them to nazis, don't use nazis as an example of something they're doing that nazis also did.

I see your point, and you could have just as easily used modern political parties, who also rely on out groups, to make the point. It would be a lot less inflammatory. And while I agree that some people do what you're suggesting - both on the pro-life and pro-choice front - some people don't.

(05-12-2022 09:42 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-12-2022 07:12 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-12-2022 12:49 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-11-2022 11:36 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-11-2022 03:15 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Yep - I disagree with that perspective, but like I said, it’s our prerogatives to do so.

I think comparing something that’s more scientific (child vs fertilized egg/fetus/etc.) and based primarily off of developmental stages to something that is a legal construct, is a tough one and not necessarily apt. And it’s definitely not apt to compare viability of literally surviving with living independently.

But in that vein, I don’t know if there are perfect answers to setting any line when it comes to age and legal standings. There are always pros and cons, and I think it’s best is all sides recognized that and did not demonize or belittle others who disagreed with where that line was set.

I have tried to present MY views. Note the usage of "IMO". If anybody thinks I demonizing their views I apologize. It was not my intent. However I do think that defining certain stages as not-human or not-child is just using euphemisms to fool oneself, much like the Nazis found justification in defining Jews as sub-human. JMHO

OO - take a step back and look at what you just wrote.

You just said people like myself, who are more apt to call something a fetus are akin to Nazis. How is that not demonizing the other side?

I personally would have no issue categorizing a fetus as a human, but labeling it a child already adds a lot of connotations that don’t seem appropriate. Even more so when it is just a fertilized egg.

yeah, I thought that would be misunderstood when I wrote it.

But we humans have a history of dividing ourselves into "us" and "them", and generally it is not an offense or a lesser offense to do things to "them". whether these divisions are between Zulu/Bantu, Apache/Arapahoe, Hutu/Tutsi, Aryan/Jew, White/black, Japanese/Korean, and on and on, doesn't matter. What matters is the mindset that killing "X" is somehow different from killing a real live human like people in the "us" class.

Just saying people play mind games to differentiate. Many primitive tribes felt like any outsider was to be killed immediately. In a few places, this attitude persists. For example, North Sentinel Island.

"The Sentinelese have repeatedly attacked approaching vessels. Such attacks have resulted in the deaths of two fishermen in 2006 and an American Christian missionary, John Allen Chau in 2018."

The nazis soothed their consciences by defining the Jews as "not the same", in fact, lesser. Same has been done in this continent regarding Chinese or natives.

The point is, many of us use alternate classifications to ease our discomfort. Much easier to terminate, rather than kill, a fetus, rather than a child, even though in either case it signals the end to existence of some...thing(?) that if left alone would someday become a high school graduate.

Ergo, the mini-whirlwind over calling it a child. Of course, nobody wants to kill a child. Much better to terminate a fetus. Way different.

A rose by any other name...

If you take your dog to the vet and abort their litter, they are still puppies.

The fact that many of us, including nazis and non-nazis, have fallen into this way of thinking in no way means we embrace nazi philosophy, any more than it means we embrace North Sentinelese thinking. I was referring to the practice of changing the name/classification of something to make an action against it more palatable. For some reason, I have more trouble explaining this concept to liberals, who continue to insist it is not a child, it is a (something that is not a child).

To be perfectly clear, I am accusing anybody pro or anti of being nazis, or nazi sympathizers, just of sharing a common human way of looking at things, a way shared with nearly every human being who has ever existed.

Also to be clear, I support the right of women to kill their children control their reproduction. See how just changing the terms makes it more/less palatable?

Pro-tip: if you don't want people to misunderstand you with respect to comparing them to nazis, don't use nazis as an example of something they're doing that nazis also did.

I see your point, and you could have just as easily used modern political parties, who also rely on out groups, to make the point. It would be a lot less inflammatory. And while I agree that some people do what you're suggesting - both on the pro-life and pro-choice front - some people don't.

yeah,, there is always a kneejerk reaction to any mention of nazis or certain other groups or people.

Modern political parties is a good one, but for some people, it will trigger a similar kneejerk reaction.

I guess in the 7 billion people who inhabit this world, there are probably some who do not use euphemisms to make themselves feel better about actions they want to do or to condone. I doubt people who think the first few months of development are somehow different from the others are among them. JMHO.

(05-12-2022 10:22 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-12-2022 09:42 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-12-2022 07:12 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-12-2022 12:49 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-11-2022 11:36 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I have tried to present MY views. Note the usage of "IMO". If anybody thinks I demonizing their views I apologize. It was not my intent. However I do think that defining certain stages as not-human or not-child is just using euphemisms to fool oneself, much like the Nazis found justification in defining Jews as sub-human. JMHO

OO - take a step back and look at what you just wrote.

You just said people like myself, who are more apt to call something a fetus are akin to Nazis. How is that not demonizing the other side?

I personally would have no issue categorizing a fetus as a human, but labeling it a child already adds a lot of connotations that don’t seem appropriate. Even more so when it is just a fertilized egg.

yeah, I thought that would be misunderstood when I wrote it.

But we humans have a history of dividing ourselves into "us" and "them", and generally it is not an offense or a lesser offense to do things to "them". whether these divisions are between Zulu/Bantu, Apache/Arapahoe, Hutu/Tutsi, Aryan/Jew, White/black, Japanese/Korean, and on and on, doesn't matter. What matters is the mindset that killing "X" is somehow different from killing a real live human like people in the "us" class.

Just saying people play mind games to differentiate. Many primitive tribes felt like any outsider was to be killed immediately. In a few places, this attitude persists. For example, North Sentinel Island.

"The Sentinelese have repeatedly attacked approaching vessels. Such attacks have resulted in the deaths of two fishermen in 2006 and an American Christian missionary, John Allen Chau in 2018."

The nazis soothed their consciences by defining the Jews as "not the same", in fact, lesser. Same has been done in this continent regarding Chinese or natives.

The point is, many of us use alternate classifications to ease our discomfort. Much easier to terminate, rather than kill, a fetus, rather than a child, even though in either case it signals the end to existence of some...thing(?) that if left alone would someday become a high school graduate.

Ergo, the mini-whirlwind over calling it a child. Of course, nobody wants to kill a child. Much better to terminate a fetus. Way different.

A rose by any other name...

If you take your dog to the vet and abort their litter, they are still puppies.

The fact that many of us, including nazis and non-nazis, have fallen into this way of thinking in no way means we embrace nazi philosophy, any more than it means we embrace North Sentinelese thinking. I was referring to the practice of changing the name/classification of something to make an action against it more palatable. For some reason, I have more trouble explaining this concept to liberals, who continue to insist it is not a child, it is a (something that is not a child).

To be perfectly clear, I am accusing anybody pro or anti of being nazis, or nazi sympathizers, just of sharing a common human way of looking at things, a way shared with nearly every human being who has ever existed.

Also to be clear, I support the right of women to kill their children control their reproduction. See how just changing the terms makes it more/less palatable?

Pro-tip: if you don't want people to misunderstand you with respect to comparing them to nazis, don't use nazis as an example of something they're doing that nazis also did.

I see your point, and you could have just as easily used modern political parties, who also rely on out groups, to make the point. It would be a lot less inflammatory. And while I agree that some people do what you're suggesting - both on the pro-life and pro-choice front - some people don't.

yeah,, there is always a kneejerk reaction to any mention of nazis or certain other groups or people.

Modern political parties is a good one, but for some people, it will trigger a similar kneejerk reaction.

I guess in the 7 billion people who inhabit this world, there are probably some who do not use euphemisms to make themselves feel better about actions they want to do or to condone. I doubt people who think the first few months of development are somehow different from the others are among them. JMHO.

You humble opinion is wrong, though.

I don't think calling a just fertilized egg a child makes sense, but I don't have that opinion so I can feel better about someone having an abortion. To me, the developmental stage at that point is best described as a fertilized egg, and not a child. I don't have an exact line as to when to describe someone as a child, as opposed to a fertalized egg, zygote, fetus, etc., but I don't have that opinion because I want to use a euphemism.

(05-12-2022 10:55 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-12-2022 10:22 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-12-2022 09:42 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-12-2022 07:12 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-12-2022 12:49 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  OO - take a step back and look at what you just wrote.

You just said people like myself, who are more apt to call something a fetus are akin to Nazis. How is that not demonizing the other side?

I personally would have no issue categorizing a fetus as a human, but labeling it a child already adds a lot of connotations that don’t seem appropriate. Even more so when it is just a fertilized egg.

yeah, I thought that would be misunderstood when I wrote it.

But we humans have a history of dividing ourselves into "us" and "them", and generally it is not an offense or a lesser offense to do things to "them". whether these divisions are between Zulu/Bantu, Apache/Arapahoe, Hutu/Tutsi, Aryan/Jew, White/black, Japanese/Korean, and on and on, doesn't matter. What matters is the mindset that killing "X" is somehow different from killing a real live human like people in the "us" class.

Just saying people play mind games to differentiate. Many primitive tribes felt like any outsider was to be killed immediately. In a few places, this attitude persists. For example, North Sentinel Island.

"The Sentinelese have repeatedly attacked approaching vessels. Such attacks have resulted in the deaths of two fishermen in 2006 and an American Christian missionary, John Allen Chau in 2018."

The nazis soothed their consciences by defining the Jews as "not the same", in fact, lesser. Same has been done in this continent regarding Chinese or natives.

The point is, many of us use alternate classifications to ease our discomfort. Much easier to terminate, rather than kill, a fetus, rather than a child, even though in either case it signals the end to existence of some...thing(?) that if left alone would someday become a high school graduate.

Ergo, the mini-whirlwind over calling it a child. Of course, nobody wants to kill a child. Much better to terminate a fetus. Way different.

A rose by any other name...

If you take your dog to the vet and abort their litter, they are still puppies.

The fact that many of us, including nazis and non-nazis, have fallen into this way of thinking in no way means we embrace nazi philosophy, any more than it means we embrace North Sentinelese thinking. I was referring to the practice of changing the name/classification of something to make an action against it more palatable. For some reason, I have more trouble explaining this concept to liberals, who continue to insist it is not a child, it is a (something that is not a child).

To be perfectly clear, I am accusing anybody pro or anti of being nazis, or nazi sympathizers, just of sharing a common human way of looking at things, a way shared with nearly every human being who has ever existed.

Also to be clear, I support the right of women to kill their children control their reproduction. See how just changing the terms makes it more/less palatable?

Pro-tip: if you don't want people to misunderstand you with respect to comparing them to nazis, don't use nazis as an example of something they're doing that nazis also did.

I see your point, and you could have just as easily used modern political parties, who also rely on out groups, to make the point. It would be a lot less inflammatory. And while I agree that some people do what you're suggesting - both on the pro-life and pro-choice front - some people don't.

yeah,, there is always a kneejerk reaction to any mention of nazis or certain other groups or people.

Modern political parties is a good one, but for some people, it will trigger a similar kneejerk reaction.

I guess in the 7 billion people who inhabit this world, there are probably some who do not use euphemisms to make themselves feel better about actions they want to do or to condone. I doubt people who think the first few months of development are somehow different from the others are among them. JMHO.

You humble opinion is wrong, though.

I don't think calling a just fertilized egg a child makes sense, but I don't have that opinion so I can feel better about someone having an abortion. To me, the developmental stage at that point is best described as a fertilized egg, and not a child. I don't have an exact line as to when to describe someone as a child, as opposed to a fertalized egg, zygote, fetus, etc., but I don't have that opinion because I want to use a euphemism.

But, at the end, it is a living thing, composed of absolutely human makeup.

(05-12-2022 11:14 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-12-2022 10:55 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-12-2022 10:22 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-12-2022 09:42 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-12-2022 07:12 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  yeah, I thought that would be misunderstood when I wrote it.

But we humans have a history of dividing ourselves into "us" and "them", and generally it is not an offense or a lesser offense to do things to "them". whether these divisions are between Zulu/Bantu, Apache/Arapahoe, Hutu/Tutsi, Aryan/Jew, White/black, Japanese/Korean, and on and on, doesn't matter. What matters is the mindset that killing "X" is somehow different from killing a real live human like people in the "us" class.

Just saying people play mind games to differentiate. Many primitive tribes felt like any outsider was to be killed immediately. In a few places, this attitude persists. For example, North Sentinel Island.

"The Sentinelese have repeatedly attacked approaching vessels. Such attacks have resulted in the deaths of two fishermen in 2006 and an American Christian missionary, John Allen Chau in 2018."

The nazis soothed their consciences by defining the Jews as "not the same", in fact, lesser. Same has been done in this continent regarding Chinese or natives.

The point is, many of us use alternate classifications to ease our discomfort. Much easier to terminate, rather than kill, a fetus, rather than a child, even though in either case it signals the end to existence of some...thing(?) that if left alone would someday become a high school graduate.

Ergo, the mini-whirlwind over calling it a child. Of course, nobody wants to kill a child. Much better to terminate a fetus. Way different.

A rose by any other name...

If you take your dog to the vet and abort their litter, they are still puppies.

The fact that many of us, including nazis and non-nazis, have fallen into this way of thinking in no way means we embrace nazi philosophy, any more than it means we embrace North Sentinelese thinking. I was referring to the practice of changing the name/classification of something to make an action against it more palatable. For some reason, I have more trouble explaining this concept to liberals, who continue to insist it is not a child, it is a (something that is not a child).

To be perfectly clear, I am accusing anybody pro or anti of being nazis, or nazi sympathizers, just of sharing a common human way of looking at things, a way shared with nearly every human being who has ever existed.

Also to be clear, I support the right of women to kill their children control their reproduction. See how just changing the terms makes it more/less palatable?

Pro-tip: if you don't want people to misunderstand you with respect to comparing them to nazis, don't use nazis as an example of something they're doing that nazis also did.

I see your point, and you could have just as easily used modern political parties, who also rely on out groups, to make the point. It would be a lot less inflammatory. And while I agree that some people do what you're suggesting - both on the pro-life and pro-choice front - some people don't.

yeah,, there is always a kneejerk reaction to any mention of nazis or certain other groups or people.

Modern political parties is a good one, but for some people, it will trigger a similar kneejerk reaction.

I guess in the 7 billion people who inhabit this world, there are probably some who do not use euphemisms to make themselves feel better about actions they want to do or to condone. I doubt people who think the first few months of development are somehow different from the others are among them. JMHO.

You humble opinion is wrong, though.

I don't think calling a just fertilized egg a child makes sense, but I don't have that opinion so I can feel better about someone having an abortion. To me, the developmental stage at that point is best described as a fertilized egg, and not a child. I don't have an exact line as to when to describe someone as a child, as opposed to a fertalized egg, zygote, fetus, etc., but I don't have that opinion because I want to use a euphemism.

But, at the end, it is a living thing, composed of absolutely human makeup.

Yes…

(05-12-2022 11:30 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-12-2022 11:14 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-12-2022 10:55 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-12-2022 10:22 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-12-2022 09:42 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Pro-tip: if you don't want people to misunderstand you with respect to comparing them to nazis, don't use nazis as an example of something they're doing that nazis also did.

I see your point, and you could have just as easily used modern political parties, who also rely on out groups, to make the point. It would be a lot less inflammatory. And while I agree that some people do what you're suggesting - both on the pro-life and pro-choice front - some people don't.

yeah,, there is always a kneejerk reaction to any mention of nazis or certain other groups or people.

Modern political parties is a good one, but for some people, it will trigger a similar kneejerk reaction.

I guess in the 7 billion people who inhabit this world, there are probably some who do not use euphemisms to make themselves feel better about actions they want to do or to condone. I doubt people who think the first few months of development are somehow different from the others are among them. JMHO.

You humble opinion is wrong, though.

I don't think calling a just fertilized egg a child makes sense, but I don't have that opinion so I can feel better about someone having an abortion. To me, the developmental stage at that point is best described as a fertilized egg, and not a child. I don't have an exact line as to when to describe someone as a child, as opposed to a fertalized egg, zygote, fetus, etc., but I don't have that opinion because I want to use a euphemism.

But, at the end, it is a living thing, composed of absolutely human makeup.

Yes…

Unless it is frozen in an IVF freezer. Then it likely does not fit most definitions of "living thing" despite it's human makeup in the DNA.

I wonder how GoodOwl feels about IVF? Is the discarding of those "extra" zygotes tantamount to abortion which is tantamount to murdering children?

(05-12-2022 10:55 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-12-2022 10:22 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-12-2022 09:42 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-12-2022 07:12 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-12-2022 12:49 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  OO - take a step back and look at what you just wrote.

You just said people like myself, who are more apt to call something a fetus are akin to Nazis. How is that not demonizing the other side?

I personally would have no issue categorizing a fetus as a human, but labeling it a child already adds a lot of connotations that don’t seem appropriate. Even more so when it is just a fertilized egg.

yeah, I thought that would be misunderstood when I wrote it.

But we humans have a history of dividing ourselves into "us" and "them", and generally it is not an offense or a lesser offense to do things to "them". whether these divisions are between Zulu/Bantu, Apache/Arapahoe, Hutu/Tutsi, Aryan/Jew, White/black, Japanese/Korean, and on and on, doesn't matter. What matters is the mindset that killing "X" is somehow different from killing a real live human like people in the "us" class.

Just saying people play mind games to differentiate. Many primitive tribes felt like any outsider was to be killed immediately. In a few places, this attitude persists. For example, North Sentinel Island.

"The Sentinelese have repeatedly attacked approaching vessels. Such attacks have resulted in the deaths of two fishermen in 2006 and an American Christian missionary, John Allen Chau in 2018."

The nazis soothed their consciences by defining the Jews as "not the same", in fact, lesser. Same has been done in this continent regarding Chinese or natives.

The point is, many of us use alternate classifications to ease our discomfort. Much easier to terminate, rather than kill, a fetus, rather than a child, even though in either case it signals the end to existence of some...thing(?) that if left alone would someday become a high school graduate.

Ergo, the mini-whirlwind over calling it a child. Of course, nobody wants to kill a child. Much better to terminate a fetus. Way different.

A rose by any other name...

If you take your dog to the vet and abort their litter, they are still puppies.

The fact that many of us, including nazis and non-nazis, have fallen into this way of thinking in no way means we embrace nazi philosophy, any more than it means we embrace North Sentinelese thinking. I was referring to the practice of changing the name/classification of something to make an action against it more palatable. For some reason, I have more trouble explaining this concept to liberals, who continue to insist it is not a child, it is a (something that is not a child).

To be perfectly clear, I am accusing anybody pro or anti of being nazis, or nazi sympathizers, just of sharing a common human way of looking at things, a way shared with nearly every human being who has ever existed.

Also to be clear, I support the right of women to kill their children control their reproduction. See how just changing the terms makes it more/less palatable?

Pro-tip: if you don't want people to misunderstand you with respect to comparing them to nazis, don't use nazis as an example of something they're doing that nazis also did.

I see your point, and you could have just as easily used modern political parties, who also rely on out groups, to make the point. It would be a lot less inflammatory. And while I agree that some people do what you're suggesting - both on the pro-life and pro-choice front - some people don't.

yeah,, there is always a kneejerk reaction to any mention of nazis or certain other groups or people.

Modern political parties is a good one, but for some people, it will trigger a similar kneejerk reaction.

I guess in the 7 billion people who inhabit this world, there are probably some who do not use euphemisms to make themselves feel better about actions they want to do or to condone. I doubt people who think the first few months of development are somehow different from the others are among them. JMHO.

You humble opinion is wrong, though.

I don't think calling a just fertilized egg a child makes sense, but I don't have that opinion so I can feel better about someone having an abortion. To me, the developmental stage at that point is best described as a fertilized egg, and not a child. I don't have an exact line as to when to describe someone as a child, as opposed to a fertalized egg, zygote, fetus, etc., but I don't have that opinion because I want to use a euphemism.

You don't even realize you are doing it.

Children look different at different stages. So?

(05-12-2022 11:41 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-12-2022 11:30 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-12-2022 11:14 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-12-2022 10:55 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-12-2022 10:22 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  yeah,, there is always a kneejerk reaction to any mention of nazis or certain other groups or people.

Modern political parties is a good one, but for some people, it will trigger a similar kneejerk reaction.

I guess in the 7 billion people who inhabit this world, there are probably some who do not use euphemisms to make themselves feel better about actions they want to do or to condone. I doubt people who think the first few months of development are somehow different from the others are among them. JMHO.

You humble opinion is wrong, though.

I don't think calling a just fertilized egg a child makes sense, but I don't have that opinion so I can feel better about someone having an abortion. To me, the developmental stage at that point is best described as a fertilized egg, and not a child. I don't have an exact line as to when to describe someone as a child, as opposed to a fertalized egg, zygote, fetus, etc., but I don't have that opinion because I want to use a euphemism.

But, at the end, it is a living thing, composed of absolutely human makeup.

Yes…

Unless it is frozen in an IVF freezer. Then it likely does not fit most definitions of "living thing" despite it's human makeup in the DNA.

I wonder how GoodOwl feels about IVF? Is the discarding of those "extra" zygotes tantamount to abortion which is tantamount to murdering children?

What if an 8 year old is caught in an avalanche, buried, and freezes? Is it still a child? Is it still a human?


And it is not murder if it is legal. It may well be the killing of an (unborn) human, but it is a legal killing, same as if it is aborted later in a clinic. Good grief, how many times do I have to make this point?

(05-12-2022 11:41 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-12-2022 11:30 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-12-2022 11:14 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-12-2022 10:55 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-12-2022 10:22 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  yeah,, there is always a kneejerk reaction to any mention of nazis or certain other groups or people.

Modern political parties is a good one, but for some people, it will trigger a similar kneejerk reaction.

I guess in the 7 billion people who inhabit this world, there are probably some who do not use euphemisms to make themselves feel better about actions they want to do or to condone. I doubt people who think the first few months of development are somehow different from the others are among them. JMHO.

You humble opinion is wrong, though.

I don't think calling a just fertilized egg a child makes sense, but I don't have that opinion so I can feel better about someone having an abortion. To me, the developmental stage at that point is best described as a fertilized egg, and not a child. I don't have an exact line as to when to describe someone as a child, as opposed to a fertalized egg, zygote, fetus, etc., but I don't have that opinion because I want to use a euphemism.

But, at the end, it is a living thing, composed of absolutely human makeup.

Yes…

Unless it is frozen in an IVF freezer. Then it likely does not fit most definitions of "living thing" despite it's human makeup in the DNA.

I wonder how GoodOwl feels about IVF? Is the discarding of those "extra" zygotes tantamount to abortion which is tantamount to murdering children?

If pondering the edge cases makes you feel better about 'human' or not, so be it.

The crux is that in 99%+ of the cases what is at issue is 'human'. But leave it to some to dance a war party dance around an edge case to have a 'I showed him up' moment.

If you want another killer gotcha' definitions game -- cancer cells. Go run some laps with that one so show us all up.

Sidebar: By the way lad, the 's around human are done to make sure the context is the *word* human, and the 's around 'I showed him up' are done to isolate a singular thought. That is before you ***** me blue moon about misquoting.

(05-12-2022 12:34 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-12-2022 10:55 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-12-2022 10:22 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-12-2022 09:42 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-12-2022 07:12 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  yeah, I thought that would be misunderstood when I wrote it.

But we humans have a history of dividing ourselves into "us" and "them", and generally it is not an offense or a lesser offense to do things to "them". whether these divisions are between Zulu/Bantu, Apache/Arapahoe, Hutu/Tutsi, Aryan/Jew, White/black, Japanese/Korean, and on and on, doesn't matter. What matters is the mindset that killing "X" is somehow different from killing a real live human like people in the "us" class.

Just saying people play mind games to differentiate. Many primitive tribes felt like any outsider was to be killed immediately. In a few places, this attitude persists. For example, North Sentinel Island.

"The Sentinelese have repeatedly attacked approaching vessels. Such attacks have resulted in the deaths of two fishermen in 2006 and an American Christian missionary, John Allen Chau in 2018."

The nazis soothed their consciences by defining the Jews as "not the same", in fact, lesser. Same has been done in this continent regarding Chinese or natives.

The point is, many of us use alternate classifications to ease our discomfort. Much easier to terminate, rather than kill, a fetus, rather than a child, even though in either case it signals the end to existence of some...thing(?) that if left alone would someday become a high school graduate.

Ergo, the mini-whirlwind over calling it a child. Of course, nobody wants to kill a child. Much better to terminate a fetus. Way different.

A rose by any other name...

If you take your dog to the vet and abort their litter, they are still puppies.

The fact that many of us, including nazis and non-nazis, have fallen into this way of thinking in no way means we embrace nazi philosophy, any more than it means we embrace North Sentinelese thinking. I was referring to the practice of changing the name/classification of something to make an action against it more palatable. For some reason, I have more trouble explaining this concept to liberals, who continue to insist it is not a child, it is a (something that is not a child).

To be perfectly clear, I am accusing anybody pro or anti of being nazis, or nazi sympathizers, just of sharing a common human way of looking at things, a way shared with nearly every human being who has ever existed.

Also to be clear, I support the right of women to kill their children control their reproduction. See how just changing the terms makes it more/less palatable?

Pro-tip: if you don't want people to misunderstand you with respect to comparing them to nazis, don't use nazis as an example of something they're doing that nazis also did.

I see your point, and you could have just as easily used modern political parties, who also rely on out groups, to make the point. It would be a lot less inflammatory. And while I agree that some people do what you're suggesting - both on the pro-life and pro-choice front - some people don't.

yeah,, there is always a kneejerk reaction to any mention of nazis or certain other groups or people.

Modern political parties is a good one, but for some people, it will trigger a similar kneejerk reaction.

I guess in the 7 billion people who inhabit this world, there are probably some who do not use euphemisms to make themselves feel better about actions they want to do or to condone. I doubt people who think the first few months of development are somehow different from the others are among them. JMHO.

You humble opinion is wrong, though.

I don't think calling a just fertilized egg a child makes sense, but I don't have that opinion so I can feel better about someone having an abortion. To me, the developmental stage at that point is best described as a fertilized egg, and not a child. I don't have an exact line as to when to describe someone as a child, as opposed to a fertalized egg, zygote, fetus, etc., but I don't have that opinion because I want to use a euphemism.

You don't even realize you are doing it.

Children look different at different stages. So?

lad is having the same problem with having a fetus defined as 'human' as he does with the definitions of 'discrimination' and 'racism'.

And, lad, the `s are used to offset the issue as a word.... just so you dont ***** a blue moon over a misquote or somefink.

(05-12-2022 12:41 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-12-2022 11:41 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-12-2022 11:30 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-12-2022 11:14 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-12-2022 10:55 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  You humble opinion is wrong, though.

I don't think calling a just fertilized egg a child makes sense, but I don't have that opinion so I can feel better about someone having an abortion. To me, the developmental stage at that point is best described as a fertilized egg, and not a child. I don't have an exact line as to when to describe someone as a child, as opposed to a fertalized egg, zygote, fetus, etc., but I don't have that opinion because I want to use a euphemism.

But, at the end, it is a living thing, composed of absolutely human makeup.

Yes…

Unless it is frozen in an IVF freezer. Then it likely does not fit most definitions of "living thing" despite it's human makeup in the DNA.

I wonder how GoodOwl feels about IVF? Is the discarding of those "extra" zygotes tantamount to abortion which is tantamount to murdering children?

If pondering the edge cases makes you feel better about 'human' or not, so be it.

The crux is that in 99%+ of the cases what is at issue is 'human'. But leave it to some to dance a war party dance around an edge case to have a 'I showed him up' moment.

If you want another killer gotcha' definitions game -- cancer cells. Go run some laps with that one so show us all up.

Sidebar: By the way lad, the 's around human are done to make sure the context is the *word* human, and the 's around 'I showed him up' are done to isolate a singular thought. That is before you ***** me blue moon about misquoting.

Huh? Show you up? Calm down, Holmes.

Abortion is one of the trickiest issues around and I don't know where my personal line is regarding when it goes from "not a child" to a "child". That's why I'm asking people who seem to know their line about the specifics of their position on this.

I would not say that 99% of the cases at hand are "children" and therein lies to controversy. I don't call a zygote a child whereas apparently some of you would.

Not a gotcha. Again... calmate.

Are these the same people who tell us to follow the science?

What part of science tells us that a fertilized egg is not on the path to being a human individual?

I remember my wife when she learned she was pregnant. It was always the baby this, the baby that, never the zygote or the fetus. The Baby.

Although she was wrong. It turned out to be two babies.

Maybe y'all had a different experience. Maybe your wives were indifferent until, say, viabiliity.

(05-12-2022 01:07 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Are these the same people who tell us to follow the science?

What part of science tells us that a fertilized egg is not on the path to being a human individual?

A human fertilized egg is < 50% of the time on the path to being a human individual.

(05-12-2022 01:21 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-12-2022 01:07 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Are these the same people who tell us to follow the science?

What part of science tells us that a fertilized egg is not on the path to being a human individual?

A human fertilized egg is < 50% of the time on the path to being a human individual.

A fertilized egg of homo sapiens is a developmental stage of homo sapiens and is thus a representative of that species. Not sure where you're going here - a philosophical distinction between pre-human and human? That's at odds with the scientific definition approach you were taking earlier.

(05-12-2022 12:34 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-12-2022 10:55 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-12-2022 10:22 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-12-2022 09:42 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-12-2022 07:12 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  yeah, I thought that would be misunderstood when I wrote it.

But we humans have a history of dividing ourselves into "us" and "them", and generally it is not an offense or a lesser offense to do things to "them". whether these divisions are between Zulu/Bantu, Apache/Arapahoe, Hutu/Tutsi, Aryan/Jew, White/black, Japanese/Korean, and on and on, doesn't matter. What matters is the mindset that killing "X" is somehow different from killing a real live human like people in the "us" class.

Just saying people play mind games to differentiate. Many primitive tribes felt like any outsider was to be killed immediately. In a few places, this attitude persists. For example, North Sentinel Island.

"The Sentinelese have repeatedly attacked approaching vessels. Such attacks have resulted in the deaths of two fishermen in 2006 and an American Christian missionary, John Allen Chau in 2018."

The nazis soothed their consciences by defining the Jews as "not the same", in fact, lesser. Same has been done in this continent regarding Chinese or natives.

The point is, many of us use alternate classifications to ease our discomfort. Much easier to terminate, rather than kill, a fetus, rather than a child, even though in either case it signals the end to existence of some...thing(?) that if left alone would someday become a high school graduate.

Ergo, the mini-whirlwind over calling it a child. Of course, nobody wants to kill a child. Much better to terminate a fetus. Way different.

A rose by any other name...

If you take your dog to the vet and abort their litter, they are still puppies.

The fact that many of us, including nazis and non-nazis, have fallen into this way of thinking in no way means we embrace nazi philosophy, any more than it means we embrace North Sentinelese thinking. I was referring to the practice of changing the name/classification of something to make an action against it more palatable. For some reason, I have more trouble explaining this concept to liberals, who continue to insist it is not a child, it is a (something that is not a child).

To be perfectly clear, I am accusing anybody pro or anti of being nazis, or nazi sympathizers, just of sharing a common human way of looking at things, a way shared with nearly every human being who has ever existed.

Also to be clear, I support the right of women to kill their children control their reproduction. See how just changing the terms makes it more/less palatable?

Pro-tip: if you don't want people to misunderstand you with respect to comparing them to nazis, don't use nazis as an example of something they're doing that nazis also did.

I see your point, and you could have just as easily used modern political parties, who also rely on out groups, to make the point. It would be a lot less inflammatory. And while I agree that some people do what you're suggesting - both on the pro-life and pro-choice front - some people don't.

yeah,, there is always a kneejerk reaction to any mention of nazis or certain other groups or people.

Modern political parties is a good one, but for some people, it will trigger a similar kneejerk reaction.

I guess in the 7 billion people who inhabit this world, there are probably some who do not use euphemisms to make themselves feel better about actions they want to do or to condone. I doubt people who think the first few months of development are somehow different from the others are among them. JMHO.

You humble opinion is wrong, though.

I don't think calling a just fertilized egg a child makes sense, but I don't have that opinion so I can feel better about someone having an abortion. To me, the developmental stage at that point is best described as a fertilized egg, and not a child. I don't have an exact line as to when to describe someone as a child, as opposed to a fertalized egg, zygote, fetus, etc., but I don't have that opinion because I want to use a euphemism.

You don't even realize you are doing it.

Children look different at different stages. So?

No, I am not doing what you suggest - I’m not using a euphemism, which has a clear connotation of trying to make something sound nicer or more palatable than it is.

That is not my intent here. By your argument an adult a child and a geriatric are all one in the same, just different stages. I think that’s a flawed perspective, personally. But I’m not making a value judgement as to why you have that perspective or whether it’s a euphemism itself.

(05-12-2022 01:30 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(05-12-2022 01:21 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-12-2022 01:07 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Are these the same people who tell us to follow the science?

What part of science tells us that a fertilized egg is not on the path to being a human individual?

A human fertilized egg is < 50% of the time on the path to being a human individual.

A fertilized egg of homo sapiens is a developmental stage of homo sapiens and is thus a representative of that species. Not sure where you're going here - a philosophical distinction between pre-human and human? That's at odds with the scientific definition approach you were taking earlier.

I am saying that just because an egg gets fertilized it does not mean that this occurrence will lead to an actual pregnancy. This happens < 50% of the time.

(05-12-2022 12:44 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-12-2022 12:34 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-12-2022 10:55 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-12-2022 10:22 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-12-2022 09:42 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Pro-tip: if you don't want people to misunderstand you with respect to comparing them to nazis, don't use nazis as an example of something they're doing that nazis also did.

I see your point, and you could have just as easily used modern political parties, who also rely on out groups, to make the point. It would be a lot less inflammatory. And while I agree that some people do what you're suggesting - both on the pro-life and pro-choice front - some people don't.

yeah,, there is always a kneejerk reaction to any mention of nazis or certain other groups or people.

Modern political parties is a good one, but for some people, it will trigger a similar kneejerk reaction.

I guess in the 7 billion people who inhabit this world, there are probably some who do not use euphemisms to make themselves feel better about actions they want to do or to condone. I doubt people who think the first few months of development are somehow different from the others are among them. JMHO.

You humble opinion is wrong, though.

I don't think calling a just fertilized egg a child makes sense, but I don't have that opinion so I can feel better about someone having an abortion. To me, the developmental stage at that point is best described as a fertilized egg, and not a child. I don't have an exact line as to when to describe someone as a child, as opposed to a fertalized egg, zygote, fetus, etc., but I don't have that opinion because I want to use a euphemism.

You don't even realize you are doing it.

Children look different at different stages. So?

lad is having the same problem with having a fetus defined as 'human' as he does with the definitions of 'discrimination' and 'racism'.

And, lad, the `s are used to offset the issue as a word.... just so you dont ***** a blue moon over a misquote or somefink.

Where have I said anything about defining a fetus as a human?

I’ve explicitly only taken issue with calling it a child. I don’t think calling a fetus a human is problematic, since you’re classifying the type of being there, not a developmental stage.

Misquoting me without the quotations.

Seriously, if you’d like to have a conversation, let’s have it. But don’t throw **** around and have a tantrum.