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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Intentional obtuseness? Really?

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

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

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

(02-11-2021 12:17 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  It sounds you're ... not "comfortable" with drawing the line anywhere else (e.g. ... allowing [killing] before but not after age 2*).

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

What an F-up thing to write. What is wrong with you? You should be ashamed of yourself. I'm just presuming you can feel shame.

I can see why you got into it with some other posters, I feel like this post crossed some lines. Congratulations on that. I had some other substantive stuff written, but I just deleted it.

I hope you have a good Thursday.

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

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

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

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

(02-11-2021 12:29 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  Isn't the real question when it should be lawful to destroy it? That seems more important than what it is called.

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

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

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

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

Intentional obtuseness? Really?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(02-11-2021 11:30 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(02-11-2021 12:17 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  It sounds you're ... not "comfortable" with drawing the line anywhere else (e.g. ... allowing [killing] before but not after age 2*).

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

What an F-up thing to write. What is wrong with you? You should be ashamed of yourself. I'm just presuming you can feel shame.

I can see why you got into it with some other posters, I feel like this post crossed some lines. Congratulations on that. I had some other substantive stuff written, but I just deleted it.

I hope you have a good Thursday.

Geeze - I wonder why liberal posters sometimes feel the need to take a break here?

The topic of abortion devolves into them being implicitly accused of equating unborn children with murders because they hold the view that the government should not overly restrict abortions...

edit: to remove a comment based on George's explanation.

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

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

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

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

(02-11-2021 11:44 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-11-2021 11:30 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(02-11-2021 12:17 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  It sounds you're ... not "comfortable" with drawing the line anywhere else (e.g. ... allowing [killing] before but not after age 2*).

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

What an F-up thing to write. What is wrong with you? You should be ashamed of yourself. I'm just presuming you can feel shame.

I can see why you got into it with some other posters, I feel like this post crossed some lines. Congratulations on that. I had some other substantive stuff written, but I just deleted it.

I hope you have a good Thursday.

Geeze - I wonder why liberal posters sometimes feel the need to take a break here?

The topic of abortion devolves into them being implicitly accused of equating unborn children with murders or being supportive of murdering 2 year olds because they hold the view that the government should not overly restrict abortions...

Not surprised that this thread took a turn for the worse TBH.

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"?

(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.

(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.

Thanks for proving my point. So a fetus "is" not a "baby".

(02-11-2021 11:44 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-11-2021 11:30 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(02-11-2021 12:17 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  It sounds you're ... not "comfortable" with drawing the line anywhere else (e.g. ... allowing [killing] before but not after age 2*).

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

What an F-up thing to write. What is wrong with you? You should be ashamed of yourself. I'm just presuming you can feel shame.

I can see why you got into it with some other posters, I feel like this post crossed some lines. Congratulations on that. I had some other substantive stuff written, but I just deleted it.

I hope you have a good Thursday.

Geeze - I wonder why liberal posters sometimes feel the need to take a break here?

The topic of abortion devolves into them being implicitly accused of equating unborn children with murders or being supportive of murdering 2 year olds because they hold the view that the government should not overly restrict abortions...

A messed up thing for ME to write?
MY post crossed some lines?
LIBERAL posters feel the need to take a break?

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

Can't you guys READ?????

(02-11-2021 12:57 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(02-11-2021 11:44 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-11-2021 11:30 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(02-11-2021 12:17 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  It sounds you're ... not "comfortable" with drawing the line anywhere else (e.g. ... allowing [killing] before but not after age 2*).

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

What an F-up thing to write. What is wrong with you? You should be ashamed of yourself. I'm just presuming you can feel shame.

I can see why you got into it with some other posters, I feel like this post crossed some lines. Congratulations on that. I had some other substantive stuff written, but I just deleted it.

I hope you have a good Thursday.

Geeze - I wonder why liberal posters sometimes feel the need to take a break here?

The topic of abortion devolves into them being implicitly accused of equating unborn children with murders or being supportive of murdering 2 year olds because they hold the view that the government should not overly restrict abortions...

A messed up thing for ME to write?
MY post crossed some lines?
LIBERAL posters feel the need to take a break?

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

Can't you guys READ?????

Yes, George, we can.

You did not expressly say that Big was not comfortable with this, actually. You left it open ended and didn't say you empathically didn't believe Big to have said something like that.

If you didn't want to be at all inflammatory, you could have clearly stated:

"In fairness, I'm sure you've NEVER said that you'd be comfortable with allowing murder before, but not after 2; I'm just arguing the extreme to show..."

You said "I'm not sure you ever..." that means you leave some doubt as to whether or not Big has commented on this comfort.

Maybe I'm reading it wrong, and your intention was to try and make it clear that you weren't trying to lump Big into that, but it seemed anything but clear given Big's reaction and my reading of it, which seemed to be ambiguous.

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

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

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

(02-11-2021 01:13 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-11-2021 12:57 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(02-11-2021 11:44 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-11-2021 11:30 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(02-11-2021 12:17 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  It sounds you're ... not "comfortable" with drawing the line anywhere else (e.g. ... allowing [killing] before but not after age 2*).

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

What an F-up thing to write. What is wrong with you? You should be ashamed of yourself. I'm just presuming you can feel shame.

I can see why you got into it with some other posters, I feel like this post crossed some lines. Congratulations on that. I had some other substantive stuff written, but I just deleted it.

I hope you have a good Thursday.

Geeze - I wonder why liberal posters sometimes feel the need to take a break here?

The topic of abortion devolves into them being implicitly accused of equating unborn children with murders or being supportive of murdering 2 year olds because they hold the view that the government should not overly restrict abortions...

A messed up thing for ME to write?
MY post crossed some lines?
LIBERAL posters feel the need to take a break?

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

Can't you guys READ?????

Yes, George, we can.

Evidently you need to try a little harder.

(02-11-2021 01:13 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  You did not expressly say that Big was not comfortable with this, actually.

Again, please read the words I wrote. I expressly said that I presume Big is not comfortable killing 2-year-olds. Do you think that was an outlandish presumption?

(02-11-2021 01:13 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  You left it open ended and didn't say you empathically didn't believe Big to have said something like that.

To say that I "emphatically believe Big has said he is against infanticide" would be untrue, because I honestly have no idea whether he's actually said such a thing. In fact, MOST people have probably never said such a thing, because the topic doesn't often come up. That's why I expressly said that I am NOT sure whether he's ever said such a thing. Again, please read what I wrote, not what you think I wrote.

(02-11-2021 01:13 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  If you didn't want to be at all inflammatory, you could have clearly stated:

"In fairness, I'm sure you've NEVER said that you'd be comfortable with allowing murder before, but not after 2; I'm just arguing the extreme to show..."

For Pete's shake, you guys are college graduates. I shouldn't have to presume that level of density on your part, and you should feel embarrassed for asking me to. The quote in my signature seems to bear here.

(02-11-2021 01:13 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  You said "I'm not sure you ever..." that means you leave some doubt as to whether or not Big has commented on this comfort.

I don't have just "some doubt" whether he's commented on it; I have absolutely NO IDEA whether he's ever commented on it -- or whether you have, or anyone else here has, for that matter. But even so, I expressly presume that even if he hasn't commented on infanticide, he is against it. That seems the OPPOSITE of accusatory.

Do YOU know whether Big has previously commented on infanticide? If not, then you and I have exactly equal "doubt" as to whether he has commented on it.

(02-11-2021 01:13 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Maybe I'm reading it wrong,

No maybe about it. You and Big read it completely wrong -- evidently because you read what you think I wrote, instead of what I actually wrote -- exactly the failing that has been mentioned with discouragement elsewhere in this forum.

(02-11-2021 01:13 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  ...and your intention was to try and make it clear that you weren't trying to lump Big into that, but it seemed anything but clear given Big's reaction and my reading of it, which seemed to be ambiguous.

The hostility of Big's reaction does not establish its validity -- nor does your claimed befuddlement!


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Intentional obtuseness? Really?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(02-11-2021 11:44 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-11-2021 11:30 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(02-11-2021 12:17 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  It sounds you're ... not "comfortable" with drawing the line anywhere else (e.g. ... allowing [killing] before but not after age 2*).

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

What an F-up thing to write. What is wrong with you? You should be ashamed of yourself. I'm just presuming you can feel shame.

I can see why you got into it with some other posters, I feel like this post crossed some lines. Congratulations on that. I had some other substantive stuff written, but I just deleted it.

I hope you have a good Thursday.

Geeze - I wonder why liberal posters sometimes feel the need to take a break here?

The topic of abortion devolves into them being implicitly accused of equating unborn children with murders or being supportive of murdering 2 year olds because they hold the view that the government should not overly restrict abortions...

In answer to the question in the first paragraph, it seems to me that they take breaks to avoid debate.

In answer to the second paragraph, sometimes posters use extreme examples to point out inconsistencies in logic.

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

(02-11-2021 01:24 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(02-11-2021 01:13 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-11-2021 12:57 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(02-11-2021 11:44 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-11-2021 11:30 AM)mrbig Wrote:  What an F-up thing to write. What is wrong with you? You should be ashamed of yourself. I'm just presuming you can feel shame.

I can see why you got into it with some other posters, I feel like this post crossed some lines. Congratulations on that. I had some other substantive stuff written, but I just deleted it.

I hope you have a good Thursday.

Geeze - I wonder why liberal posters sometimes feel the need to take a break here?

The topic of abortion devolves into them being implicitly accused of equating unborn children with murders or being supportive of murdering 2 year olds because they hold the view that the government should not overly restrict abortions...

A messed up thing for ME to write?
MY post crossed some lines?
LIBERAL posters feel the need to take a break?

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

Can't you guys READ?????

Yes, George, we can.

Evidently you need to try a little harder.

(02-11-2021 01:13 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  You did not expressly say that Big was not comfortable with this, actually.

Again, please read the words I wrote. I expressly said that I presume Big is not comfortable killing 2-year-olds. Do you think that was an outlandish presumption?

(02-11-2021 01:13 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  You left it open ended and didn't say you empathically didn't believe Big to have said something like that.

To say that I "emphatically believe Big has said he is against infanticide" would be untrue, because I honestly have no idea whether he's actually said such a thing. In fact, MOST people have probably never said such a thing, because the topic doesn't often come up. That's why I expressly said that I am NOT sure whether he's ever said such a thing. Again, please read what I wrote, not what you think I wrote.

(02-11-2021 01:13 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  If you didn't want to be at all inflammatory, you could have clearly stated:

"In fairness, I'm sure you've NEVER said that you'd be comfortable with allowing murder before, but not after 2; I'm just arguing the extreme to show..."

For Pete's shake, you guys are college graduates. I shouldn't have to presume that level of density. The quote in my signature seems to bear here.

(02-11-2021 01:13 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  You said "I'm not sure you ever..." that means you leave some doubt as to whether or not Big has commented on this comfort.

I don't have "some doubt" whether he's commented on it; I have NO IDEA he's ever commented on it -- or whether you have, or anyone else here has, for that matter. But even so, I expressly presume that even if he hasn't commented on infanticide, he is against it. That seems the OPPOSITE of accusatory.

Do YOU know whether Big has previously commented on infanticide? If not, then you and I have exactly equal "doubt" as to whether he has commented on it.

(02-11-2021 01:13 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Maybe I'm reading it wrong,

No maybe about it. You and Big read it completely wrong -- evidently because you read what you think I wrote, instead of what I actually wrote -- exactly the failing that has been mentioned with discouragement elsewhere in this forum.

(02-11-2021 01:13 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  ...and your intention was to try and make it clear that you weren't trying to lump Big into that, but it seemed anything but clear given Big's reaction and my reading of it, which seemed to be ambiguous.

The hostility of Big's reaction does not establish its validity -- nor does your claimed befuddlement!


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

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

It was not crystal clear what you were trying to say, as it's taken a few posts to do that.

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

Probably best to ere on the side of caution.

I'm sorry for misinterpreting your statement and appreciate the back and forth - I'll make a revision to the previous post.

(02-11-2021 11:47 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(02-11-2021 09:44 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  when you put it that way, it sure makes a lot of people on the left side of the aisle look bad, since they do.

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

Intentional obtuseness? Really?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(02-11-2021 11:47 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

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

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

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

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

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

Some jurisdictions allow charges of murder for both e the child and the mother when a pregnant woman is killed. I wonder how they define "unborn child".

I know that before my children and grandchildren were still in utero, all concerned considered them a child. We had names picked out, for example. Could be just us. But I doubt any woman going into a labor room is surprised to come out with a child as if it appeared by magic.

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

(02-11-2021 11:47 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

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

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

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

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

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

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

Denoting it as eligible to be lawfully destroyed is the necessary first step to lawfully destroying it.