jkwilliams Posted May 13, 2022 Posted May 13, 2022 17 minutes ago, pogi said: To make sure I understand (because it doesn't seem like you are understanding the implications here), if technology advances to where all embryos become viable, your position is that they should all be protected from abortion? If that truly is your position, ok, but I don't think pro-lifer's would see that as a reasonable compromise. I just don't see how basing human rights on technology makes sense or is reasonable. I prefer to discuss things that are in the realm of reality, not hypothetical fantasies. And I’m unconcerned that you don’t think viability is a reasonable compromise. I wasn’t speaking for you or any other “pro-life” person. 1
jkwilliams Posted May 13, 2022 Posted May 13, 2022 7 minutes ago, pogi said: I'm sorry you feel that way. I truly don't understand then. I have no intention of putting words in your mouth or arguing with strawmen. That would be a waste of my time. I don't have it out for you. I am not here to attribute anything to you that you do not intend to portray. I genuinely want an answer to my question. If you think that a doctor should have full unbridled and unrestricted authority to determine the appropriateness of abortion without any medically legal qualifications for the word "appropriate", then how would the scenario I portrayed not be the end result? Anyone will be able to find a legal abortion clinic in any state that will have a doctor who is willing to perform an abortion at any point and for any reason. How do you intend to plug that loop-hole without the government qualifying the word "appropriate"? I'm sorry, but medicine is not unregulated, nor should it be. The government (not private doctors) gets to decide the legal and appropriate boundaries of medical practice in the US. Do you think abortion should be an exception? If not, then again, your original comment about the government placing "legitimate reasons" for abortion is nonsense. I didn’t say you had it out for me, just that you are not engaging in a good-faith conversation. You’re misrepresenting my position yet again in the above post. Life is too short to try to get anywhere with people who have already decided they know what I think.
pogi Posted May 13, 2022 Posted May 13, 2022 18 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: I prefer to discuss things that are in the realm of reality, not hypothetical fantasies. Fair enough, I don't like fantastical hypotheticals either. What is an undeniable fact is that the point of viability is getting younger and younger and younger and younger, with no end in sight. Another undeniable fact is that you are basing human rights on what technology can do. So, regardless of where technology is today, or where it will be in 100 years from now, how is it reasonable to base human rights on technologies that we can't predict and have no objective measure for? How is that reasonable. 1
jkwilliams Posted May 13, 2022 Posted May 13, 2022 9 minutes ago, pogi said: Fair enough, I don't like fantastical hypotheticals either. What is an undeniable fact is that the point of viability is getting younger and younger and younger and younger, with no end in sight. Another undeniable fact is that you are basing human rights on what technology can do. So, regardless of where technology is today, or where it will be in 100 years from now, how is it reasonable to base human rights on technologies that we can't predict and have no objective measure for? How is that reasonable. Maybe someone else has more patience for this. Clearly I do not.
pogi Posted May 13, 2022 Posted May 13, 2022 (edited) 33 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: I didn’t say you had it out for me, just that you are not engaging in a good-faith conversation. So, you know my intentions and what I am thinking? 33 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: Life is too short to try to get anywhere with people who have already decided they know what I think. Oh, the irony! 33 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: You’re misrepresenting my position yet again in the above post. How is asking questions for clarification as to your position misrepresenting your position??? Part of healthy dialogue is paraphrasing and asking clarifying questions. If I understand you correctly... I did that in saying "if you think that...then...", if you don't think that, please clarify and don't just assume that I am acting in bad-faith! It is really easy to misunderstand in good faith on internet forums. That should be abundantly clear to all by now. There is no reason to automatically assume bad faith on my part. That is toxic to a conversation and healthy relationships. I just want answers. I want clarity as to your position because I see problems with how I understand it...how is that bad faith??? Edited May 13, 2022 by pogi 2
jkwilliams Posted May 13, 2022 Posted May 13, 2022 1 minute ago, pogi said: So, you know my intentions and what I am thinking? Oh, the irony! How is asking questions for clarification as to your position misrepresenting your position??? Part of healthy dialogue is paraphrasing and asking clarifying questions. If I understand you correctly... I did that in saying "if you think that...then...", if you don't think that, please clarify and don't just assume that I am acting in bad-faith! It is really easy to misunderstand in good faith on internet forums. That should be abundantly clear to all by now. There is no reason to automatically assume bad faith on my part. That is toxic to a conversation and healthy relationships. I just want answers. I want clarity as to your position because I see problems with how I understand it...how is that bad faith??? No, I don’t know your intentions, only that you are consistently misrepresenting my statements. Maybe it’s unintentional, but the result is the same.
pogi Posted May 13, 2022 Posted May 13, 2022 (edited) 28 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: Maybe someone else has more patience for this. Clearly I do not. Patience for what? If there is any "reason" for your position, back it up. Answer my questions. They are not trick questions and directly address your points about viability and doctors having all authority to decide what is appropriate. Edited May 13, 2022 by pogi 1
pogi Posted May 13, 2022 Posted May 13, 2022 (edited) 23 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: No, I don’t know your intentions, only that you are consistently misrepresenting my statements. Maybe it’s unintentional, but the result is the same. So, are you retracting your accusations of my engagement in bad-faith? I don't understand why you don't simply clarify and answer my questions. Misunderstandings happen. It's not the end of the world. We work through it until we understand. I think I am making fair points and asking fair questions that deserve to be addressed. Edited May 13, 2022 by pogi 1
jkwilliams Posted May 13, 2022 Posted May 13, 2022 9 minutes ago, pogi said: So, are you retracting your accusations of my engagement in bad-faith? I don't understand why you don't simply clarify and answer my questions. Misunderstandings happen. It's not the end of the world. We work through it until we understand. I think I am making fair points and asking fair questions that deserve to be addressed. I’m heading out for my physical therapy appointment. Probably going to be less painful with less contortion than this thread. 😉
pogi Posted May 13, 2022 Posted May 13, 2022 18 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: I’m heading out for my physical therapy appointment. Probably going to be less painful with less contortion than this thread. 😉 Have fun. In the meantime, I'll carry on with people who care to actually care to engage and discuss different perspectives, rather than make unfair judgments and insults. Anybody else care to address my questions regarding the point of viability being a cut-off point. That seems to be popular. I, myself, even considered it in this very thread as a point of potential compromise. Upon further reflection when walking to work this morning, it dawned on me that viability doesn't make much sense as a determining factor as it is entirely tied to technology which we can't predict the future of. It seems more reasonable to me to tie human rights to something more...human. 1
jkwilliams Posted May 13, 2022 Posted May 13, 2022 10 minutes ago, pogi said: Have fun. In the meantime, I'll carry on with people who care to actually care to engage and discuss different perspectives, rather than make unfair judgments and insults. Anybody else care to address my questions regarding the point of viability being a cut-off point. That seems to be popular. I, myself, even considered it in this very thread as a point of potential compromise. Upon further reflection when walking to work this morning, it dawned on me that viability doesn't make much sense as a determining factor as it is entirely tied to technology which we can't predict the future of. It seems more reasonable to me to tie human rights to something more...human. I am not trying to insult you but expressing my frustration at where you have gone with this conversation. I can’t have a reasonable discussion. when I’m being accused of things I haven’t said or even implied. That someone might break a law I support doesn’t mean that I support breaking the law, yet that is what you have accused me of. I do apologize for assigning bad faith to you, but I am pretty tired of chasing nonsensical accusations.
Chum Posted May 13, 2022 Posted May 13, 2022 27 minutes ago, pogi said: So, are you retracting your accusations of my engagement in bad-faith? I don't understand why you don't simply clarify and answer my questions. Misunderstandings happen. It's not the end of the world. We work through it until we understand. I think I am making fair points and asking fair questions that deserve to be addressed. Based on the back+forth, it might be worth taking a beat - look for clues that the delivery might be exhausting people. To be clear, a relentless approach can be necessary against other exhausters. Against normies though, it can feel like a beatdown. 4
jkwilliams Posted May 13, 2022 Posted May 13, 2022 (edited) 8 minutes ago, Chum said: Based on the back+forth, it might be worth taking a beat - look for clues that the delivery might be exhausting people. To be clear, a relentless approach can be necessary against other exhausters. Against normies though, it can feel like a beatdown. I readily admit I sometimes behave like an ***. But I get tired of relentless repetition of things I haven’t said or implied, even if they are somehow couched as questions. I don’t expect anyone to change their mind, but I at least hope people will let me speak for myself without twisting things. How insane is it that I’m still posting on this thread while in the PT waiting room? Edited May 13, 2022 by jkwilliams 2
SeekingUnderstanding Posted May 13, 2022 Posted May 13, 2022 (edited) 30 minutes ago, pogi said: my questions regarding the point of viability being a cut-off point. I think that viability is an imperfect compromise that may be the best we can do. I do think there is a limit though. While I think human embryo’s should be treated with respect, they simply aren’t people. If I had to choose between saving a single infant, a single 90 year old woman, or an infinite number of embryos frozen in a lab somewhere, I’d choose the infant or 90 year old without a second thought. On the other hand, a human fetus at 39 weeks seven days gestation is not in anyway different from the infant that is one day old. Add to all of this is the HUGE burden that a mother undertakes to bring a baby to term. It’s not a simple equation. I personally think all first trimester abortions should be legal regardless of reason. This cut off gives ample time for each woman to seek an abortion if they do desire. The growing baby at this stage has not experienced consciousness which happens at 24-28 weeks. I think after the first trimester we should start being more careful. Life and health of mother and growing child type of situation. Once the baby is viable under current technology (and coincidentally conscious) I think women who do not want to mother a child, should be able to have the baby delivered (at tax payer expense) and become a ward of the state. Edited May 13, 2022 by SeekingUnderstanding 4
Chum Posted May 13, 2022 Posted May 13, 2022 4 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: How insane is it that I’m still posting on this thread while in the PT waiting room? Perhaps PT now seems more benevolent by comparison. Also - therapist or masseuse waiting rooms could good fits. Surface all those kinks that need working out.
jkwilliams Posted May 13, 2022 Posted May 13, 2022 3 minutes ago, Chum said: Perhaps PT now seems more benevolent by comparison. Also - therapist or masseuse waiting rooms could good fits. Surface all those kinks that need working out. It’s been painful, but I’ve made a lot of progress since surgery. 2 more months to go. 3
jkwilliams Posted May 13, 2022 Posted May 13, 2022 11 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said: I think that viability is an imperfect compromise that may be the best we can do. I do think there is a limit though. While I think human embryo’s should be treated with respect, they simply aren’t people. If I had to choose between saving a single infant, a single 90 year old woman, or an infinite number of embryos frozen in a lab somewhere, I’d choose the infant or 90 year old without a second thought. On the other hand, a human fetus at 39 weeks seven days gestation is not in anyway different from the infant that is one day old. Add to all of this is the HUGE burden that a mother undertakes to bring a baby to term. It’s not a simple equation. I personally think all first trimester abortions should be legal regardless of reason. This cut off gives ample time for each woman to seek an abortion if they do desire. The growing baby at this stage has not experienced consciousness which happens at 24-28 weeks. I think after the first trimester we should start being more careful. Life and health of mother and growing child type of situation. Once the baby is viable under current technology (and coincidentally conscious) I think women who do not want to mother a child, should be able to have the baby delivered (at tax payer expense) and become a ward of the state. The advantage is that, whatever one’s definition of “personhood,” most people agree on the meaning of viability. It’s not a perfect solution, but it beats the heck out the extreme positions from zealots on both sides. 2
pogi Posted May 13, 2022 Posted May 13, 2022 23 minutes ago, Chum said: Based on the back+forth, it might be worth taking a beat - look for clues that the delivery might be exhausting people. To be clear, a relentless approach can be necessary against other exhausters. Against normies though, it can feel like a beatdown. Back and forth takes two. He is not the victim in this. There was no beat down. There was a lot of question asking and seeking clarification, on my part, based on his position (as I understand it). A bunch of dodging, accusations, and making comments that he was unwilling to clarify or defend, on his part. I should have walked away, but I personally have a pet peeve when people participate in a dialogue and refuse to dialogue, and instead make comments that they refuse to defend and instead dodge with personal attacks. Bluedreams and I hashed it out, but I think we finally understand each other. Exhausting? Yes. Worth it? Maybe - I feel more understood, I hope she does too. We didn't solve anything, but at least we understand each others use of language which is critically important for any further dialogue.
jkwilliams Posted May 13, 2022 Posted May 13, 2022 10 minutes ago, pogi said: Back and forth takes two. He is not the victim in this. There was no beat down. There was a lot of question asking and seeking clarification, on my part, based on his position (as I understand it). A bunch of dodging, accusations, and making comments that he was unwilling to clarify or defend, on his part. I should have walked away, but I personally have a pet peeve when people participate in a dialogue and refuse to dialogue, and instead make comments that they refuse to defend and instead dodge with personal attacks. Bluedreams and I hashed it out, but I think we finally understand each other. Exhausting? Yes. Worth it? Maybe - I feel more understood, I hope she does too. We didn't solve anything, but at least we understand each others use of language which is critically important for any further dialogue. I’m no victim, but I didn’t see a lot of interest in understanding my position.
pogi Posted May 13, 2022 Posted May 13, 2022 33 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said: I think that viability is an imperfect compromise that may be the best we can do. I do think there is a limit though. While I think human embryo’s should be treated with respect, they simply aren’t people. If I had to choose between saving a single infant, a single 90 year old woman, or an infinite number of embryos frozen in a lab somewhere, I’d choose the infant or 90 year old without a second thought. On the other hand, a human fetus at 39 weeks seven days gestation is not in anyway different from the infant that is one day old. Add to all of this is the HUGE burden that a mother undertakes to bring a baby to term. It’s not a simple equation. I personally think all first trimester abortions should be legal regardless of reason. This cut off gives ample time for each woman to seek an abortion if they do desire. The growing baby at this stage has not experienced consciousness which happens at 24-28 weeks. I think after the first trimester we should start being more careful. Life and health of mother and growing child type of situation. Once the baby is viable under current technology (and coincidentally conscious) I think women who do not want to mother a child, should be able to have the baby delivered (at tax payer expense) and become a ward of the state. How do you address the fact that viability is fluid and may change in time? This is the point I can't seem to get an answer to. It makes more sense to base it on something objectively measurable that is tied to the fetus, like heart beat, active nervous system, ability to see light, suck thumb, or "consciousness" (good luck unpacking and defining that term!).
pogi Posted May 13, 2022 Posted May 13, 2022 16 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: I’m no victim, but I didn’t see a lot of interest in understanding my position. I didn't see much interest in trying to help me understand. Go look how many question marks I printed in our back and forth. Now look and see how many attempts you made to help me understand your position or answer any clarifying questions before hurling accusations and dodging my questions.
jkwilliams Posted May 13, 2022 Posted May 13, 2022 1 minute ago, pogi said: How do you address the fact that viability is fluid and may change in time? This is the point I can't seem to get an answer to. It makes more sense to base it on something objectively measurable that is tied to the fetus, like heart beat, active nervous system, ability to see light, suck thumb, or "consciousness" (good luck unpacking and defining that term!). I accept it’s fluid, but it’s not useful to suggest that viability will continue to get earlier all the way to conception. If that were even possible centuries from now, we might adjust the laws and have a different discussion. For now, everyone agrees on what viability means, so it’s at least a starting point for compromise. 1
jkwilliams Posted May 13, 2022 Posted May 13, 2022 1 minute ago, pogi said: I didn't see much interest in trying to help me understand. Go look how many question marks I printed in our back and forth. Now look and see how many attempts you made to help me understand your position or answer any clarifying questions before hurling accusations and dodging my questions. You do realize that a question mark doesn’t necessarily reflect any interest in understanding, right? You lost me when you implied that unethical abortion doctors could violate a law I support, and that meant I supported breaking the law. How am I supposed to respond to something like that?
Chum Posted May 13, 2022 Posted May 13, 2022 10 minutes ago, pogi said: Back and forth takes two. He is not the victim in this. There was no beat down. There was a lot of question asking and seeking clarification, on my part, based on his position (as I understand it). A bunch of dodging, accusations, and making comments that he was unwilling to clarify or defend, on his part. I should have walked away, but I personally have a pet peeve when people participate in a dialogue and refuse to dialogue, and instead make comments that they refuse to defend and instead dodge with personal attacks. Bluedreams and I hashed it out, but I think we finally understand each other. Exhausting? Yes. Worth it? Maybe - I feel more understood, I hope she does too. We didn't solve anything, but at least we understand each others use of language which is critically important for any further dialogue. I may have some hesitancy over these conclusions. However, you satisfied my suggestion by considering it. Not the worst outcome for a debate thread.
SeekingUnderstanding Posted May 13, 2022 Posted May 13, 2022 12 minutes ago, pogi said: How do you address the fact that viability is fluid and may change in time? This is the point I can't seem to get an answer to. It makes more sense to base it on something objectively measurable that is tied to the fetus, like heart beat, active nervous system, ability to see light, suck thumb, or "consciousness" (good luck unpacking and defining that term!). I’m comfortable with a week limit that roughly coincides with consciousness and also happens to coincide with current viability limits.
Recommended Posts