(02-11-2021 06:30 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(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?

It's not important for you to declare that at all. I understand that people have different opinions/beliefs when it comes to this. I'm not sure where my line is and I'm curious what others think.

(02-11-2021 06:30 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(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?

If I’m correct in assuming that I’m one of the Three Amigos you’re referencing, I have find it utterly unimportant for you to declare anything as nonhuman.

You do you.

My issue has been with your line of questioning and seemingly your desire to try and project and imprint your interpretation on this specific question.

(02-11-2021 07:53 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-11-2021 06:30 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-11-2021 06:22 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

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

(02-11-2021 12:34 PM)mrbig Wrote:  "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?

If I’m correct in assuming that I’m one of the Three Amigos you’re referencing, I have find it utterly unimportant for you to declare anything as nonhuman.

You do you.

My issue has been with your line of questioning and seemingly your desire to try and project and imprint your interpretation on this specific question.

Y'all keep arguing with me for some reason, I keep repeating what I think.

(02-11-2021 08:45 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-11-2021 07:53 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-11-2021 06:30 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-11-2021 06:22 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

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

If I’m correct in assuming that I’m one of the Three Amigos you’re referencing, I have find it utterly unimportant for you to declare anything as nonhuman.

You do you.

My issue has been with your line of questioning and seemingly your desire to try and project and imprint your interpretation on this specific question.

Y'all keep arguing with me for some reason, I keep repeating what I think.

For the fifth or sixth time, I took no issue with your perspective and haven’t argued with that. I personally took issue with you trying to stir the pot with your insistence to continue arguing with others about the definition of human.

It’s not like you stated your opinion and left it at that - you kept pushing back and poking others about their thoughts. Just look at this back and forth with Big - you could have let his response stand as is, but your response about the “thing inside them” was argumentative.

Stop playing the victim card when you’re the perpetrator.

(02-12-2021 06:31 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-11-2021 08:45 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-11-2021 07:53 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-11-2021 06:30 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-11-2021 06:22 PM)mrbig Wrote:  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?

If I’m correct in assuming that I’m one of the Three Amigos you’re referencing, I have find it utterly unimportant for you to declare anything as nonhuman.

You do you.

My issue has been with your line of questioning and seemingly your desire to try and project and imprint your interpretation on this specific question.

Y'all keep arguing with me for some reason, I keep repeating what I think.

For the fifth or sixth time, I took no issue with your perspective and haven’t argued with that. I personally took issue with you trying to stir the pot with your insistence to continue arguing with others about the definition of human.

It’s not like you stated your opinion and left it at that - you kept pushing back and poking others about their thoughts. Just look at this back and forth with Big - you could have let his response stand as is, but your response about the “thing inside them” was argumentative.

Stop playing the victim card when you’re the perpetrator.

"Pushing back" implies there was another, initial, push.

Yep, I kept explaining and re-explaining my position in response to the TA's insistent efforts to show me I was wrong.

Instead of pushing back against me and my thoughts on the matter, try asking some women, preferably some who have had children, if they considered the "thing inside them" as a thing or as a baby? I asked Big to give his wife's opinion (female OB/Gyn, mother) and pass it on to me. Still waiting. ( I use the term "thing inside them" to avoid using the terms "child" or "baby", which seems to inflame the discussion.)

Whether or not one considers a fetus to be a human being is important. History is full of people leading genocides who first dehumanized their target as a way of making it OK to kill them. They characterized their targets as unhuman or subhuman, or somehow "different" , and therefore killing them is OK.

My opposition to outlawing abortion lies in the fact that I lived through a time when that was so, and saw the negatives. I cannot in good conscience say that I endorse OR oppose abortion, because I see good and bad points about both sides of that question. so I keep out of the question. Nobody has asked me what I think should be done about it, legally, and that's good, since I don't have an answer.

Legally, we draw lines about when it is OK to kill humans and when it is not. That's what law does. I do not take the position that it is never OK to kill humans. Even though I oppose the death penalty, it is not on those grounds. Lots of those executed deserve it - McVea, for example. Still, I would have put him in SuperMax for life instead. On principle - MY principles - not merit.



Oh, here I go trying to explain my position again. Mea culpa. My bad. Giving opinions on a political board? That's a no-no. It's OK for you guys to explain your positions, but not me. I guess that's why I am a perpetrator and you guys are...not.

I guess maybe I should just lean back and let you guys tell me how to think. That seems to be the approved response.

(02-12-2021 10:27 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-12-2021 06:31 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-11-2021 08:45 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-11-2021 07:53 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-11-2021 06:30 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  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?

If I’m correct in assuming that I’m one of the Three Amigos you’re referencing, I have find it utterly unimportant for you to declare anything as nonhuman.

You do you.

My issue has been with your line of questioning and seemingly your desire to try and project and imprint your interpretation on this specific question.

Y'all keep arguing with me for some reason, I keep repeating what I think.

For the fifth or sixth time, I took no issue with your perspective and haven’t argued with that. I personally took issue with you trying to stir the pot with your insistence to continue arguing with others about the definition of human.

It’s not like you stated your opinion and left it at that - you kept pushing back and poking others about their thoughts. Just look at this back and forth with Big - you could have let his response stand as is, but your response about the “thing inside them” was argumentative.

Stop playing the victim card when you’re the perpetrator.

"Pushing back" implies there was another, initial, push.

Yep, I kept explaining and re-explaining my position in response to the TA's insistent efforts to show me I was wrong.

Instead of pushing back against me and my thoughts on the matter, try asking some women, preferably some who have had children, if they considered the "thing inside them" as a thing or as a baby? I asked Big to give his wife's opinion (female OB/Gyn, mother) and pass it on to me. Still waiting. ( I use the term "thing inside them" to avoid using the terms "child" or "baby", which seems to inflame the discussion.)

Whether or not one considers a fetus to be a human being is important. History is full of people leading genocides who first dehumanized their target as a way of making it OK to kill them. They characterized their targets as unhuman or subhuman, or somehow "different" , and therefore killing them is OK.

Legally, we draw lines about when it is OK to kill humans and when it is not. That's what law does. I do not take the position that it is never OK to kill humans. Even though I oppose the death penalty, it is not on those grounds. Lots of those executed deserve it - McVea, for example. Still, I would have put him in SuperMax for life instead. On principle - MY principles - not merit.



Oh, here I go trying to explain my position again. Mea culpa. My bad. Giving opinions on a political board? That's a no-no. It's OK for you guys to explain your positions, but not me. I guess that's why I am a perpetrator and you guys are...not.

I guess maybe I should just lean back and let you guys tell me how to think. That seems to be the approved response.

For the second post in a row, I take no issue with your perspective and haven’t argued with that.

Again, stop playing the victim card! What in the previous post makes you think I had any issue you with your personal opinion on the definition of what should be considered a human?

(02-11-2021 06:38 PM)mrbig Wrote:  All - I apologize for the way I handled ...

As do I.

(02-11-2021 06:38 PM)mrbig Wrote:  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...

Big is a good guy. We should all remember that.

(02-12-2021 10:27 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I asked Big to give his wife's opinion (female OB/Gyn, mother) and pass it on to me. Still waiting. ( I use the term "thing inside them" to avoid using the terms "child" or "baby", which seems to inflame the discussion.)

Apparently you missed me replying with my wife's comments in Post #135. To save you the trouble of scrolling back:

mrsbig Wrote: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).

Please note that I was really only asking my wife as an OBGYN (not as a mom or woman) because my impression of your earlier comments was that you were making strictly science-based argument, and my reply was based on my belief (perhaps incorrect) that you arguments were based on science.

You keep writing that abortion is killing a human. My only point is that I'm not sure you are technically correct (which is more important for science, medicine, and law than it is for discussion around a water cooler or at a coffee shop, as in those cases things such distinctions just become semantics). I am not trying to be hyper-technical if you are just talking around the water cooler. I am trying to be technically correct if you are talking about science, medicine, or the law.

(02-12-2021 11:49 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(02-12-2021 10:27 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I asked Big to give his wife's opinion (female OB/Gyn, mother) and pass it on to me. Still waiting. ( I use the term "thing inside them" to avoid using the terms "child" or "baby", which seems to inflame the discussion.)

Apparently you missed me replying with my wife's comments in Post #135. To save you the trouble of scrolling back:

mrsbig Wrote: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).

Please note that I was really only asking my wife as an OBGYN (not as a mom or woman) because my impression of your earlier comments was that you were making strictly science-based argument, and my reply was based on my belief (perhaps incorrect) that you arguments were based on science.

You keep writing that abortion is killing a human. My only point is that I'm not sure you are technically correct (which is more important for science, medicine, and law than it is for discussion around a water cooler or at a coffee shop, as in those cases things such distinctions just become semantics). I am not trying to be hyper-technical if you are just talking around the water cooler. I am trying to be technically correct if you are talking about science, medicine, or the law.

So 'science' has an explicit and specific definition of 'human'? Interesting. What might that be? The only way I could think of would be a genetic-type definition, and in the age of recombinant DNA technology even that might not carry the day.

Medicine? Again, what is that definition of a a 'human'?

I would presume the law does, since any term can be redefined to even mean its opposite in the law, so that really doesnt buy your argument much, does it?

After thinking about it, I think the law typically *doesnt* define a 'human'; albeit it can (and does) define a 'person.' And I can think of a ton of statutes that seemingly redefine it in the manner like: 'a licensed peace officer shall not be considered to be a person for the purposes of this (law, section, subsection, etc. on not having a license to carry).

(02-12-2021 11:49 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(02-12-2021 10:27 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I asked Big to give his wife's opinion (female OB/Gyn, mother) and pass it on to me. Still waiting. ( I use the term "thing inside them" to avoid using the terms "child" or "baby", which seems to inflame the discussion.)

Apparently you missed me replying with my wife's comments in Post #135. To save you the trouble of scrolling back:

mrsbig Wrote: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).

Please note that I was really only asking my wife as an OBGYN (not as a mom or woman) because my impression of your earlier comments was that you were making strictly science-based argument, and my reply was based on my belief (perhaps incorrect) that you arguments were based on science.

You keep writing that abortion is killing a human. My only point is that I'm not sure you are technically correct (which is more important for science, medicine, and law than it is for discussion around a water cooler or at a coffee shop, as in those cases things such distinctions just become semantics). I am not trying to be hyper-technical if you are just talking around the water cooler. I am trying to be technically correct if you are talking about science, medicine, or the law.

I did miss it. I have several medical crises to various members of my family (not me) happening, and my tie at the computer is often interrupted with phone calls. So sometimes when I come back, maybe I don't go back
far enough.

My realization that a fetus/embryo/child/whatever is a human being came about a few years ago, when a very liberal leftist on another site was arguing with a pro-lifer that an abortion was not the taking of a human life because fetuses/embryos are not human, which led those two to a debate on when it becomes human, and if it is not human, what the heck is it? I thought on this question for a long time. This was way back, but even then I was neutral in the political wars over abortion, having, also after much thought, come to the conclusion I could not wholeheartedly support either side. So my pondering was uninfluenced by wanting to come up with an answer that supported on one political position or another.

what I came up with is exactly what I have been repeating. It must be human, because a scientist testing would conclude it is human. It is early stages of development if a human. Just because these stages have names, it does not mean the subject is not human. There is a stage called "teenager", and while sometimes they may not seem human, they really are.

Then it goes to the question of "killing". To me it is clear that when something, a tree or a weed or a fetus, is growing, and that growth is stopped, that is killing it.

Then it becomes a question of "lawful" killing. We have lots of killings that are defined as lawful in the jurisdiction where they occur. lawful killings are not "murder", which is an unlawful killing, and special legal definition of same.

Run it all together, bake 30 minutes at 400 degrees, and the cake that comes out is that abortion is the lawful killing of a human being. That is my belief. It does not have to be yours. I don't care if you agree with me. But when I have expressed this opinion, I get push back on various parts of the cake. I believe what I believe. We can call this person a fetus or a teenager or a whatever, they are still, IMO, humans.

Thank you for a calm and respectful reply. I hope you will accept mine in the same way. But now I have real world problems to attend to, so I shall leave this site for a while. Might be 2 hours or 2 days, maybe longer, maybe shorter, but I do have serious things to attend to.

OO

(02-12-2021 12:19 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  So 'science' has an explicit and specific definition of 'human'? Interesting. What might that be? The only way I could think of would be a genetic-type definition, and in the age of recombinant DNA technology even that might not carry the day.

Medicine? Again, what is that definition of a a 'human'?

I would presume the law does, since any term can be redefined to even mean its opposite in the law, so that really doesnt buy your argument much, does it?

After thinking about it, I think the law typically *doesnt* define a 'human'; albeit it can (and does) define a 'person.' And I can think of a ton of statutes that seemingly redefine it in the manner like: 'a licensed peace officer shall not be considered to be a person for the purposes of this (law, section, subsection, etc. on not having a license to carry).

If you go back to when I first replied to OO, you can see that he is talking about "human" while ignoring the "living" or "alive" part of the discussion. So my early point to him was that the more-difficult-to-resolve issue on abortion isn't the "human" part but the part he was purposefully ignoring, the "alive" or "living" part. That is why we got into a brief discussion about my toenail clippings and defecation.

Then I essentially made the same point when OO and someone else were referring to developing humans that were still in the womb as "unborn children".

So none of my comments were really ever focused on the "human" part and my comment that you replied to was really just a shorthand to OO reminding him why I was being persnickety with language (because I thought he was just talking about medicine/science, not water cooler/common parlance).

(02-12-2021 12:37 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Thank you for a calm and respectful reply. I hope you will accept mine in the same way. But now I have real world problems to attend to, so I shall leave this site for a while. Might be 2 hours or 2 days, maybe longer, maybe shorter, but I do have serious things to attend to.

OO

Thank you as well for your respectful reply! Ironically, I think you and I basically end up at the same spot - we think this is an issue that is better left to others to decide! So we agree again! We may disagree on some of the terms and our path to that opinion.

To me "killing" denotes something being alive. I personally believe that a 3rd trimester fetus is basically the same as a newborn since if they are born that day, there is an excellent chance of survival for the fetus/baby.

That's why I'm ultimately only ok with 3rd trimester terminations to protect the life (or very serious health) of the woman or if the fetus/baby has basically no chance of survival and it would be safer/healthier for the woman to terminate. That said, I don't like the idea of throwing doctors or women in jail or fining them for using their medical judgment in those instances just because someone else comes along later with their retrospectoscope. So I am uncomfortable with laws regarding 3rd trimester terminations because I trust the judgment of the average physician more than the average politician or judge. I guess I would technically be OK with a law saying that only physicians (or some other highly trained health care provider who has taken the hippocratic oath) are allowed to perform 3rd trimester terminations. But again, my preference is to keep judges and politicians away from these decisions, which are almost universally gut-wrenching occurrences for the woman.

Similarly, I don't really think a bean-sized collection of cells is a living human in the same way that you or I or a fetus that has been carried for 8 months is a living human. You choose to call it a living human. I guess I would lean more toward potential human or developing human. Those aren't perfect descriptions, but they at least capture why I don't agree with your train of thought.

Hope everyone in your family is OK, prayers to you and yours.

I am reading that you dont feel that OO would "be technically correct" if "[he is] talking about science, medicine, or the law" when he uses the word 'human'".

That requires a predicate under each of 'science, medicine, or the law' of there being a definition of human. So, what are those definitions?

Using his same definition, that is as opposed to toenail clippings and defecation, a person with a Glasgow score of 3 is human, a Glasgow score of (4,4,4) is human, a Glasgow score of E2 V NT M2, and interestingly, and HeLa cancer cells that can exist and survive out of the body would fit.

The problem with your statement alleging that you are 'technically correct' in those three areas with the word 'human' is that there is no definition of such word in at least the two of 'science and medicine', and one that is hardly any better under the legal system (you know, where 'no more than 180 days' somehow means 'greater than 180 days' in some cha cha cha instances).

In short, you are claiming a 'technical correctness' where I see little to no definitional ground for that 'technical' correctness. With all respect, your 'technical[ly] correct' usage (without any sort of definitional foundation) suffers the same problems that you complain of when noting the problems with OOs usage.

>> To me "killing" denotes something being alive.

The classical definition of 'alive' means 'having life'.

Life *does* have a popular scientific definition. Life consists of a system having the attributes of growth, heredity (i.e. having traits defined by genes or DNA), homeostasis, metabolism, cellular composition, response to stimuli, and having cellular reproduction.

Which of the traits above does a 3 month fetus exhibit? Answer, all of them.

Which of the traits above does a zygote have? Answer: all of them. (yes, the clump of cells reacts to its environment, albeit in limited fashion).

So, do you really want to go down the path of 'not killing' and 'not alive' here? Undoubtedly, even at the zygote stage one would be killing that life that is existent in that clump of cells. By definition they are alive. So your comment that the clump of cells isnt killed doesnt seem to be readily on point or correct.

As with OO, I am agnostic as to the killing of a clump of cells; in fact my viewpoint is much in line with that of #s as well.

But to evade the issue your stance that 'killing' denotes something alive absolutely overlooks that life is existent even in the single fertilized egg, and that the 'force' (bad substitute word here, apologies) embodied in that even small clump of cells is certainly life by any definition, and by removing it from the environment one certainly is extinguishing the life present there -- that is 'killing' it.

Tanq - you did a brilliant job there. I wrote about a “living human” and you write two separate posts, the first focusing on “human” and the second focusing on “living”. It is a wonder you didn’t just combine the two posts into one to actually respond to my point! I don’t deny that a zygote is a form of “life”, I am just not sure it is a “living human”. I tried to be careful with my language, perhaps I slipped, but I do not think I went so far as to affirmatively state that I had the answers or to personally define “living human”.

My whole point was that I am not comfortable making that definition, but am more comfortable letting some experts evaluate it and to determine how to draw the best moral, ethical, and legal lines possible.

Also, if you re-read my post, I don’t think I actually claimed that I was “technically correct”, I just expressed skepticism that OO was “technically correct” and offered some critiques.

Have a good weekend and a happy Mardi Gras!

(02-13-2021 12:17 AM)mrbig Wrote:  Tanq - you did a brilliant job there. I wrote about a “living human” and you write two separate posts, the first focusing on “human” and the second focusing on “living”. It is a wonder you didn’t just combine the two posts into one to actually respond to my point! I don’t deny that a zygote is a form of “life”, I am just not sure it is a “living human”. I tried to be careful with my language, perhaps I slipped, but I do not think I went so far as to affirmatively state that I had the answers or to personally define “living human”.

My whole point was that I am not comfortable making that definition, but am more comfortable letting some experts evaluate it and to determine how to draw the best moral, ethical, and legal lines possible.

Also, if you re-read my post, I don’t think I actually claimed that I was “technically correct”, I just expressed skepticism that OO was “technically correct” and offered some critiques.

Have a good weekend and a happy Mardi Gras!

Each was a response to a different post of yours. Your 'killing something alive' was not in the same post as your comments on being technically correct or incorrect on the term 'human.'

Apologies for not making a 'dual' answer. Some of us do the 'read, respond, read more' as opposed to the "read, read, read, make consolidated post' paradigm. Pardon me for not doing the latter. I shall be more astudious to the situation so it will conform to your sensibilities.

as for Mardi Gras --- it doesnt sound fun in 20 degree weather. Ill flash my (redacted) in much warmer climes. I hope you have a happy Mardi Gras as well.

(02-13-2021 09:30 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-13-2021 12:17 AM)mrbig Wrote:  Tanq - you did a brilliant job there. I wrote about a “living human” and you write two separate posts, the first focusing on “human” and the second focusing on “living”. It is a wonder you didn’t just combine the two posts into one to actually respond to my point! I don’t deny that a zygote is a form of “life”, I am just not sure it is a “living human”. I tried to be careful with my language, perhaps I slipped, but I do not think I went so far as to affirmatively state that I had the answers or to personally define “living human”.

My whole point was that I am not comfortable making that definition, but am more comfortable letting some experts evaluate it and to determine how to draw the best moral, ethical, and legal lines possible.

Also, if you re-read my post, I don’t think I actually claimed that I was “technically correct”, I just expressed skepticism that OO was “technically correct” and offered some critiques.

Have a good weekend and a happy Mardi Gras!

Each was a response to a different post of yours. Your 'killing something alive' was not in the same post as your comments on being technically correct or incorrect on the term 'human.'

Apologies for not making a 'dual' answer. Some of us do the 'read, respond, read more' as opposed to the "read, read, read, make consolidated post' paradigm. Pardon me for not doing the latter. I shall be more astudious to the situation so it will conform to your sensibilities.

as for Mardi Gras --- it doesnt sound fun in 20 degree weather. Ill flash my (redacted) in much warmer climes. I hope you have a happy Mardi Gras as well.

Fun fact about Mardi Gras - no flashing at the parades. It’s a common misconception that this occurs along parade routes, but I’ve never seen that - a lot more kids on ladders, keggers in UHauls, and general drunkenness. But head to Bourbon St.... Oh lawdy, that’s a whole other story.

But the only good thing on Bourbon during Mardi Gras is the French 75 Bar and Lafitte’s Blacksmith Shop (IMO).

(01-30-2021 11:42 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(01-30-2021 10:54 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  ...I am surprised FBO has not retracted his statement and apologized, as he seems to be a person of integrity.

As for the other two, I am fine with their absence.

Agreed on all counts.

On the first point, I might reconsider my agreement, as he seems to harbor some sort of personal resentment. I don't know why.

(02-13-2021 09:37 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Fun fact about Mardi Gras - no flashing at the parades. It’s a common misconception that this occurs along parade routes, but I’ve never seen that - a lot more kids on ladders, keggers in UHauls, and general drunkenness. But head to Bourbon St.... Oh lawdy, that’s a whole other story.

But the only good thing on Bourbon during Mardi Gras is the French 75 Bar and Lafitte’s Blacksmith Shop (IMO).

Perfect summary! Yes, Mardi Gras is not the same as Bourbon Street.

(03-16-2021 08:09 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(01-30-2021 11:42 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(01-30-2021 10:54 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  ...I am surprised FBO has not retracted his statement and apologized, as he seems to be a person of integrity.

As for the other two, I am fine with their absence.

Agreed on all counts.

On the first point, I might reconsider my agreement, as he seems to harbor some sort of personal resentment. I don't know why.

You bring up a quote from 2 months ago and feel that I am harboring some sort of personal resentment? Perhaps you should look in the mirror?