A Non-Religious Case Against Abortion

[LastPoet]

I only wish my mom had grabbed a coat hanger. Well, whats done is done. Thanks mom.

[Dānu]

It is inconsistent. That's why in post #1233 I said as much.

The reason for the exceptions are a compromise to get some legislation passed because people do not have carefully considered views on abortion and balk at rape and incest scenarios. The general idea of a stepped approach actually has a name in the pro-life movement: incrementalism.

Or maybe they just don't agree with you. You have a habit of describing anyone whose views differ from yours as being uninformed. That's a rather blatant form of poisoning the well.

[LastPoet]

Here is a story for those holier-than-thou motherfuckers. My mom, due to our poverty after giving birth to this asshole writing, gave birth to two girls in stereo. She confessed to me that she had a fourth and made an abortion. In tears. I know that i can' t ever do my mom justice, and it will never my place to judge her, only a big hug, and perhaps not worry her much, impossible it may seem.

[SaxonX]

Incrementalism is just deception by degrees because forced birth positions is so unpalatable if they  were honest no one would fall for it.

[LastPoet]

Huh?

[Minimalist]

Or maybe they just don't agree with you. 

I most certainly do not agree with a superstitous twit like Stevie.

[SteveII]

It is inconsistent. That's why in post #1233 I said as much.

The reason for the exceptions are a compromise to get some legislation passed because people do not have carefully considered views on abortion and balk at rape and incest scenarios. The general idea of a stepped approach actually has a name in the pro-life movement: incrementalism.

Or maybe they just don't agree with you.  You have a habit of describing anyone whose views differ from yours as being uninformed.  That's a rather blatant form of poisoning the well.

Okay, I suppose there are people that just don't like the idea of killing the unborn--not strictly based on a moral argument--and are willing to use political power to impose that view on others. While I would say that is not a carefully considered view, it is a view. Perhaps that is what the incrementalism approach appeals to.

[Dānu]

[working on it]

[Dānu]

Or maybe they just don't agree with you.  You have a habit of describing anyone whose views differ from yours as being uninformed.  That's a rather blatant form of poisoning the well.

Okay, I suppose there are people that just don't like the idea of killing the unborn--not strictly based on a moral argument--and are willing to use political power to impose that view on others. While I would say that is not a carefully considered view, it is a view. Perhaps that is what the incrementalism approach appeals to.

Your current response isn't particularly relevant. You have committed a hasty generalization and pointing to examples that fit your generalization does not abet your error.

Given that your moral argument didn't lead to your conclusion and was basically a non sequitur, I'd be hesitant to cast stones if I were you. Forming your opinion based on bad arguments is no better than forming your opinion based upon no arguments. Since you've embraced Hume's is/ought distinction, no rational argument can establish a moral proposition based upon natural facts. It's a significant question as to whether moral judgments themselves are admitting of inspection by reason, as some theorists, such as Jonathan Haidt, argue that moral intuitions come first, and rationalizing those intuitions comes second. Indeed, it seems unlikely that if a person did not have the intuition that killing the unborn is wrong that they would then pursue developing arguments in favor of said proposition and advocating laws aimed at preventing it. So the question becomes a) can reason establish moral truths, and b) what is the role of intuition here, and c) can people have intuitions that are logically inconsistent, either with these other intuitions, or with conclusions they draw from other intuitions. The possibilities multiply. It's possible that one's intuition formed in ignorance is modified or suppressed by exposure to ideas and arguments and propaganda; their perception of their intuitions wouldn't thereby be a more accurate indicator of truth and possibly the reverse.

I don't think you've really given sufficient consideration to the support for your conclusion. You remind me of a chess player who only thinks one move ahead, constantly reacting, rather than acting proactively. Your arguments as a whole are tellingly ad hoc. You don't think things through before you say them. How is that an example of an informed position?

[1Sam15]

Or maybe they just don't agree with you.  You have a habit of describing anyone whose views differ from yours as being uninformed.  That's a rather blatant form of poisoning the well.

Okay, I suppose there are people that just don't like the idea of killing the unborn--not strictly based on a moral argument--and are willing to use political power to impose that view on others. While I would say that is not a carefully considered view, it is a view. Perhaps that is what the incrementalism approach appeals to.

Isn’t YOUR god the one doing the killing @SteveII?

After all it knows everything and still forces women into unwanted pregnancy.

[1Sam15]

I know this topic is a non religious excuse to force women into giving birth against their free will but do you @SteveII believe your god designed the reproduction system to be one of gods greatest designs?

Women can become pregnant on the very first time and need science to reduce that occurrence. Clearly humanity doesn’t think it is.

If you are married @SteveII , did you wife use contraception?

[SaxonX]

Okay, I suppose there are people that just don't like the idea of killing the unborn--not strictly based on a moral argument--and are willing to use political power to impose that view on others. While I would say that is not a carefully considered view, it is a view. Perhaps that is what the incrementalism approach appeals to.

Your by definition imposing your political views on others your just trying to sneak it in through the backdoor

[daughterofkarl]

I don't know if this point has been raised in previous posts. I haven't the time or, honestly, the desire to go back and read the 52 pages of responses the OP generated. So, I will skip the niceties and simply present my thinking. I don't know that this is an argument, per se, as much as it is a thought experiment.

I will say that I have made this point at various times and in a number of platforms over the years and have yet to receive a response from any of those to whom I have posted the query.

So, based on the OP, I would ask SteveII to consider the following:

You are standing in front of a multi-use commercial building containing several medical clinics and offices. It is a single-story building and at one end of this building is a fertility clinic. Inside this clinic/office are several hundred fertilized ova awaiting implantation; pre-born life, according to the OP.
At the other end of this building is a daycare center. It serves the employees of several of the medical offices in the building and houses 30 infants and toddlers between the ages of 8 months and 4 years.

One day, a fire breaks out in the center of this building due to, IDK, faulty wiring. The fire is spreading rapidly outward from its starting point, and imminently will reach both of these offices, the fertility clinic and its hundreds of pre-born embryos, and the daycare center containing those babies and toddlers.

SteveII, are you saying that if you were the first responder on the scene, you would have to stop and think about which end of the building to evacuate first?

If you are like most sane, decent human beings, you aren't hesitating to run into that daycare center, scoop up as many of those infants and toddlers as you can and get them the hell out of there. If you really would pause to consider ignoring those babies in favor of the embryos resting in their petri dishes, then I submit you have way bigger problems than a bad argument.

But, I think you are like most of us. I think you would not hesitate for a moment to save those babies. I think you would expect any self-respecting firefighter or first responder to do the same. I think you understand that the grief experienced by the parents of a 2-yr-old who dies of smoke inhalation if they don't is of a different quality than that experienced by the couples who may lose the opportunity to implant their frozen embryos.

And in understanding that, you have tacitly acknowledged that a fertilized embryo is not the same as an infant; that a zygote is not the same as a fetus, and that a fetus is not the same as an infant.

Even though you argue that "the difference between a pre-born and newborn is largely one of location and developmental stage (P3)" and that "setting an arbitrary developmental threshold for when rights are earned (such as viability, birth, or development of certain physical or cognitive abilities) is problematic...(P3)," in expecting firefighters to save those babies and toddlers first--which I am asserting would be expected by the vast majority of society, even those who are theoretically against abortion and believe that life begins at conception--a determination has already been made that the needs and rights of the actual infant supersedes the rights and needs of the pre-born, potential infant.

The crux of your argument rests in a false equivalency: that potentiality is equal to actuality. You appear to acknowledge this in P2 when you state "The zygote, formed at conception, is the initial stage of a human being's life cycle, initiating a complex process of development that, if uninterrupted by natural or external factors, will lead to the birth of a human child" It will be a human child if, and only if, that "complex process" is not interrupted. The zygote is not yet a child but has the potential to become a child. A baby that has already been born is an actual child. In advocating for a zygote to be treated as having equal rights and needs as that of an infant, you are making no distinction between the potential child and the actual child.

I assert that the logic doesn't work. Potentiality does not equal actuality. They are not the same.

To illustrate: My husband's father, grandfather and great grandfather all died from strokes before the age of 65. My husband, given what we know about family health histories and genetics, has the potential to die of a stroke. If potentiality is equal to actuality, he's already dead. I suppose I should don the widow's weeds, and set up my dating profile?

If potentiality equals actuality, I should probably not report to work in August and start polishing up my resume. I'm a feminist, an atheist, an outspoken political dissident and, maybe worst of all, a teacher. In Texas. I have the potential to be fired from my job, and since--say it with me now--potentiality equals actuality, I already have been.

And what are we going to do with all those serial killers?? You know, the 6 or 8-yr-olds who are setting fires, hurting animals, and wetting the bed. FBI profilers have found that children who display this particular triumvirate of behaviors have the potential to become serial killers. If potentiality equals actuality, they've already killed dozens of people! Shall we go ahead and incarcerate them? Or, given that they all have the potential to be tried, found guilty and given the death penalty, shall we just cut to the chase and execute them now?

Of course not. That doesn't make sense. Potentiality does not equal Actuality. And I submit, therefore that the OP's argument is faulty and illogical.

Thank you for coming to my TED talk.

DOK

[Minimalist]

Welcome Karl's Daughter....

This:

"SteveII, are you saying that if you were the first responder on the scene, you would have to stop and think about which end of the building to evacuate first?"


Told me right off the bat that you were new here.  Stevie?  Stop and think?  He might pray or do something equally worthless but Stevie is much bigger on telling his fellow humans what they should do while he himself does nothing.

[Alan V]

...

Potentiality does not equal Actuality.  And I submit, therefore that the OP's argument is faulty and illogical.

Thank you for coming to my TED talk.

DOK

You have written two very thoughtful posts, five years apart.  I hope you didn't find our group so off-putting that you decided not to continue after your initial introduction.

[SYZ]

I don't know if this point has been raised in previous posts.  I haven't the time or, honestly, the desire to go back and read the 52 pages of responses the OP generated.  So, I will skip the niceties and simply present my thinking.  I don't know that this is an argument, per se, as much as it is a thought experiment.

[...]

Of course not.  That doesn't make sense.  Potentiality does not equal Actuality.  And I submit, therefore that the OP's argument is faulty and illogical.

Thank you for coming to my TED talk.

DOK

Thank you for your thoughtful and thought-provoking comments.    

In the past, I've asked Steve (and a couple of other theists here)
if they were at home and suffered a heart attack, would they firstly
fall to their knees in prayer, or call 911 for an ambulance.

And just like the other couple of theists I directed this question to,
Steve failed to respond.  Which is exactly what he invariably does
when posed these sorts of real-world questions.

[brewerb]

The only flaw in the argument is assuming that Steve would do anything more than calling 911, but only after thoughts and prayers cause, you know, it's in gods hands now.

[Minimalist]

You have written two very thoughtful posts, five years apart.  I hope you didn't find our group so off-putting that you decided not to continue after your initial introduction.

Hey, it took Beethoven 30 years to complete the 9th Symphony.  Great works of art can't be rushed!

[SteveII]

I don't know if this point has been raised in previous posts.  I haven't the time or, honestly, the desire to go back and read the 52 pages of responses the OP generated.  So, I will skip the niceties and simply present my thinking.  I don't know that this is an argument, per se, as much as it is a thought experiment.

I will say that I have made this point at various times and in a number of platforms over the years and have yet to receive a response from any of those to whom I have posted the query.  

So, based on the OP, I would ask SteveII to consider the following:

You are standing in front of a multi-use commercial building containing several medical clinics and offices.  It is a single-story building and at one end of this building is a fertility clinic.  Inside this clinic/office are several hundred fertilized ova awaiting implantation; pre-born life, according to the OP.
At the other end of this building is a daycare center.  It serves the employees of several of the medical offices in the building and houses 30 infants and toddlers between the ages of 8 months and 4 years.

One day, a fire breaks out in the center of this building due to, IDK, faulty wiring.  The fire is spreading rapidly outward from its starting point, and imminently will reach both of these offices, the fertility clinic and its hundreds of pre-born embryos, and the daycare center containing those babies and toddlers.  

SteveII, are you saying that if you were the first responder on the scene, you would have to stop and think about which end of the building to evacuate first?

If you are like most sane, decent human beings, you aren't hesitating to run into that daycare center, scoop up as many of those infants and toddlers as you can and get them the hell out of there.  If you really would pause to consider ignoring those babies in favor of the embryos resting in their petri dishes, then I submit you have way bigger problems than a bad argument.

But, I think you are like most of us.  I think you would not hesitate for a moment to save those babies.  I think you would expect any self-respecting firefighter or first responder to do the same.  I think you understand that the grief experienced by the parents of a 2-yr-old who dies of smoke inhalation if they don't is of a different quality than that experienced by the couples who may lose the opportunity to implant their frozen embryos.  

And in understanding that, you have tacitly acknowledged that a fertilized embryo is not the same as an infant; that a zygote is not the same as a fetus, and that a fetus is not the same as an infant.  

Even though you argue that "the difference between a pre-born and newborn is largely one of location and developmental stage (P3)" and that "setting an arbitrary developmental threshold for when rights are earned (such as viability, birth, or development of certain physical or cognitive abilities) is problematic...(P3)," in expecting firefighters to save those babies and toddlers first--which I am asserting would be expected by the vast majority of society, even those who are theoretically against abortion and believe that life begins at conception--a determination has already been made that the needs and rights of the actual infant supersedes the rights and needs of the pre-born, potential infant.

First, thanks for the thoughtful response.

Of course save the children first. So, the question then is why would we do that and what does that mean?

We save children first because we believe it to be a horrific tragedy to loose a child--for many obvious reasons. But let's explore the hypothetical more. What if we had the choose between the old-folks-home and the daycare? We choose the daycare again. Why? Because we are choosing between two tragic consequences and deem one more tragic that then other. In other words, we would not say that children have more moral worth than the old-folks--we would say that the choice between two bad options is still a tragedy.

So, the argument I made was that the fetus has moral worth. Your analogy does not show that the fetus has no moral worth. In fact, it does not even show that it has less moral worth, it has less tragic consequences to let them die in favor of young children. It's the same analysis that we just spoke about in this thread last week about the life of the mother.

The crux of your argument rests in a false equivalency:  that potentiality is equal to actuality.  You appear to acknowledge this in P2 when you state "The zygote, formed at conception, is the initial stage of a human being's life cycle, initiating a complex process of development that, if uninterrupted by natural or external factors, will lead to the birth of a human child"  It will be a human child if, and only if, that "complex process" is not interrupted.  The zygote is not yet a child but has the potential to become a child.  A baby that has already been born is an actual child. In advocating for a zygote to be treated as having equal rights and needs as that of an infant, you are making no distinction between the potential child and the actual child.

I assert that the logic doesn't work.  Potentiality does not equal actuality.  They are not the same.  

The only way potential/actuality becomes a possible objection is when you equivocate two meanings of 'potential'. The description you quote where you infer 'potential' is in the sense to the natural and inevitable development of the zygote into a child, assuming no interruptions. This is a biological process where the zygote, by its very nature, is on a trajectory to become a child.

But in your argument that potential is not the same as actuality, you need to use it in a more abstract or hypothetical sense, like the potential of a student to get straight As, which depends on various external factors and efforts.

There is a meaningful difference to progress along a development path by its very nature, and considering outcomes as hypothetical. It is not hypothetical that the zygote will become a toddler some day. It is the nature of it to become a toddler some day.

To illustrate:  My husband's father, grandfather and great grandfather all died from strokes before the age of 65.  My husband, given what we know about family health histories and genetics, has the potential to die of a stroke.  If potentiality is equal to actuality, he's already dead.  I suppose I should don the widow's weeds, and set up my dating profile?  

If potentiality equals actuality, I should probably not report to work in August and start polishing up my resume.  I'm a feminist, an atheist, an outspoken political dissident and, maybe worst of all, a teacher.  In Texas. I have the potential to be fired from my job, and since--say it with me now--potentiality equals actuality, I already have been.  

And what are we going to do with all those serial killers??  You know, the 6 or 8-yr-olds who are setting fires, hurting animals, and wetting the bed.  FBI profilers have found that children who display this particular triumvirate of behaviors have the potential to become serial killers.  If potentiality equals actuality, they've already killed dozens of people!  Shall we go ahead and incarcerate them?  Or, given that they all have the potential to be tried, found guilty and given the death penalty, shall we just cut to the chase and execute them now?

Of course not.  That doesn't make sense.  Potentiality does not equal Actuality.  And I submit, therefore that the OP's argument is faulty and illogical.

Thank you for coming to my TED talk.

DOK

So all your examples were concerning hypothetical futures. This is where it becomes clear you are equivocating between inherent potentiality and hypothetical outcomes and calling them both potential.

Even if you figure out how to reformulate your point in a non-fallacious way, this line of thinking would not show my OP to be logically faulty because the original argument does not rely on the concept of 'potential' in the abstract or conditional sense, but rather on inherent potentiality built into the continuous development of human life from conception--all of which are obvious realities.


I'm not sure you got to post #61, but I added an addendum to the argument that expounds on things related to your point and my response:

FURTHER REASONS & ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF P3

Continuity of Identity: From conception to natural death, there is a continuous biological and genetic identity. This continuity suggests a constant 'personhood' as the individual evolves and develops, supporting the idea that personhood is not a status acquired at a certain stage but an inherent attribute of human existence. For example, it makes sense to say 'I would have been aborted if my mother's family had not been Catholic.' This statement implicitly recognizes the continuity of my identity from conception onwards, unlike the phrase 'The fetus that would become me would have been aborted...' which implies a transformation into 'me' at some later stage. From conception, there has been no separate entity; the fetus was always 'me' in a fundamental, unbroken continuum of personhood.

Potentiality Principle: The potential to develop characteristics typically associated with personhood (rationality, consciousness, moral agency) exists from the moment of conception. This potentiality is a significant factor in ascribing moral and ethical value to human life at all stages. Even a newborn has not achieved any significant level of abilities (way less than the family pet) yet we recognize tremendous value. The reason is bound up in the concept of potential.

Intrinsic Value and Dignity: Rooting personhood in inherent potential aligns with the view that human life has intrinsic value and dignity (Natural Law) and not conferred by external attributes (like capabilities or consciousness) but are inherent in the human condition. If you claim personhood is an attainment, you are no longer talking about intrinsic value.

Arbitrary Line-Drawing: Defining personhood based on developmental milestones (like viability or birth) is inherently arbitrary. There is no clear, objective point at which a developing human suddenly acquires personhood, suggesting that it's more philosophically consistent to recognize personhood from the outset.

Equal Moral Status: Assigning personhood based on developmental criteria creates a hierarchy of human value, which contradicts the principle of equal moral status inherent in all human beings. Recognizing personhood from conception is consistent with the idea of inherent equality. If personhood is based on certain developed capabilities (like self-awareness or autonomy), it raises ethical concerns about the status of those who lack these capabilities (like individuals with severe disabilities or in a comatose state). This leads to a slippery slope where the value of some lives could be diminished.

Relativism and Subjectivity: Related to the previous point, basing personhood on developmental or functional abilities introduces a level of relativism and subjectivity into moral and ethical judgments about human life. It leads to a fluctuating standard of personhood, dependent on evolving scientific understanding and societal norms. For example, it is only our advances in science that tells us that the unborn feels pain, when consciousness milestones happen. Other advances move the viability line further and further back. Prior to Casey, we killed countless fetuses that would be considered 'persons' today and worthy of rights. A concept as important as 'personhood' should not be so dependent.

Responsibility and Care Ethic: Recognizing personhood from conception is consistent with a responsibility and a care ethic towards all stages of human life. It encourages a societal attitude of care and protection for the vulnerable, reflecting a deep commitment to the value of human life--leading to a more compassionate and caring society. Denying personhood fosters attitudes that devalue human life. Canada's evolving euthanasia laws, which increasingly permit assisted death in broader circumstances, illustrates what happens when society starts to devalue certain stages or conditions of human life. There are documented cases where health care professionals suggest it!

In summary, recognizing personhood from conception is not just a solidly-reasoned philosophical stance, but a commitment to recognizing and upholding the inherent dignity and potential in every stage of human life--striving for a consistent application of the principles. We need to appreciate the full spectrum of human existence and ensure that our ethical frameworks are not swayed by the changing winds of societal and/or scientific trends, but are anchored in the principles of equality, dignity, and respect for all human beings.

[Minimalist]

So Stevie would gleefully sacrifice a living, breathing, woman, to save the "potential" life of a gob of goo.

Asshole.

[Paleophyte]

Continuity of Identity: From conception to natural death, there is a continuous biological and genetic identity. This continuity suggests a constant 'personhood' as the individual evolves and develops, supporting the idea that personhood is not a status acquired at a certain stage but an inherent attribute of human existence.

No. While you would prefer to place it here to further your agenda all of the evidence suggests otherwise. A single genetic identity can and does split to yield twins that have distinct and separate identities. Moreover, it takes no great expenditure of skull sweat to envision that an individual raised in a wealthy family in North America will be very different from exactly the same individual raised in poverty in a third world country. A person is the result of both nature and nurture, and nurture takes time.

For example, it makes sense to say 'I would have been aborted if my mother's family had not been Catholic.' This statement implicitly recognizes the continuity of my identity from conception onwards, unlike the phrase 'The fetus that would become me would have been aborted...' which implies a transformation into 'me' at some later stage.

Argument from common abuse of language?

Potentiality Principle: The potential to develop characteristics typically associated with personhood (rationality, consciousness, moral agency) exists from the moment of conception. This potentiality is a significant factor in ascribing moral and ethical value to human life at all stages. Even a newborn has not achieved any significant level of abilities (way less than the family pet) yet we recognize tremendous value. The reason is bound up in the concept of potential.

Every fertilized cell has the potential to drop dead before implantation or to spontaneously abort (roughly 1 in 4). Arguing from potential, we should dispose of the entire lot.

Intrinsic Value and Dignity

No such beast. Values and dignities are assigned by society. Taken away too.

Arbitrary Line-Drawing: Defining personhood based on developmental milestones (like viability or birth) is inherently arbitrary. There is no clear, objective point at which a developing human suddenly acquires personhood, suggesting that it's more philosophically consistent to recognize personhood from the outset.

So you want us to accept your arbitrary line rather than some other. Your statement, "There is no clear, objective point at which a developing human suddenly acquires personhood, suggesting that it's more philosophically consistent to recognize personhood from the outset." is self-contradictory. That's as sensible as saying that there's no clear, objective point between an entirely frozen ice cube and one that's entirely melted, so clearly your hot water tap dispenses ice.

Equal Moral Status: Assigning personhood based on developmental criteria creates a hierarchy of human value, which contradicts the principle of equal moral status inherent in all human beings.

Given that you chose the kindergarten children over the frozen embryos that seems to be the reality. Which side of this are you arguing again?

This leads to a slippery slope where the value of some lives could be diminished.

Dear god forfend that we might live in a world coloured with shades of grey. We might have to think about what we were doing in that world. A good thing everything is black and white.

Relativism and Subjectivity: Related to the previous point, basing personhood on developmental or functional abilities introduces a level of relativism and subjectivity into moral and ethical judgments about human life.

You say that as if that isn't already the case.

It leads to a fluctuating standard of personhood, dependent on evolving scientific understanding and societal norms.

And we wouldn't want to update our ethics in light of new information. That could lead to more thinking! 

Responsibility and Care Ethic: Recognizing personhood from conception is consistent with a responsibility and a care ethic towards all stages of human life. It encourages a societal attitude of care and protection for the vulnerable, reflecting a deep commitment to the value of human life--leading to a more compassionate and caring society.

Except that the evidence demonstrates that it doesn't. It leads to self-righteous zealots wasting time and resources picketing abortion clinics while death from poverty, illness, and starvation amongst those who are already born are orders of magnitude greater. If you want to convince me that you're right rather than simply righteous start with the people that we can all agree are already alive rather than frozen embryos.

In Summary: You have no argument better than "I want to put an arbitrary line here and it's a complete coincidence that it's the same as my religious indoctrination."

[Minimalist]

 "There is no clear, objective point at which a developing human suddenly acquires personhood,

Amusing isn't it that the law has no trouble determining that moment which you find so difficult to pin down, Stevie.

Public Law 107-207

‘‘(b) As used in this section, the term ‘born alive’, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.

Maybe you should spend a little less time with your fucking bible and a little more in a law library.

[Paleophyte]

One day, a fire breaks out in the center of this building due to, IDK, faulty wiring.  The fire is spreading rapidly outward from its starting point, and imminently will reach both of these offices, the fertility clinic and its hundreds of pre-born embryos, and the daycare center containing those babies and toddlers. 

If both the toddlers and the embryos were lost I know which ones we'd hold a funeral for.

[daughterofkarl]

...

Potentiality does not equal Actuality.  And I submit, therefore that the OP's argument is faulty and illogical.

Thank you for coming to my TED talk.

DOK

You have written two very thoughtful posts, five years apart.  I hope you didn't find our group so off-putting that you decided not to continue after your initial introduction.

Thank you, Alan V, and I don't find the group off-putting at all.  I am a world-class lurker, though.  My time for engaging in these forums is seriously limited, so I tend not to engage unless I am strongly compelled to.  My 3-dimensional life is very demanding of my time and energy.  I do enjoy a good debate and the sharing of ideas, although I've been at this a long, long time, and TBH, I sometimes feel like I am just having the same discussions over and over.  Learning (or re-learning, really) how to navigate these sites is always a challenge.  Just this evening, STEVEII responded to my query and I spent over an hour composing a reply only to hit some wrong key and LOSE IT ALL!!!   I'll have to rewrite it, but not tonight.  I am so disappointed!  What will be really embarrassing is if the unfinished post turns up somewhere random in the thread.  Like, what...??

Anyway, thank you for the welcome.  I hope to find time to be more active.  

DOK

[daughterofkarl]

You have written two very thoughtful posts, five years apart.  I hope you didn't find our group so off-putting that you decided not to continue after your initial introduction.

Hey, it took Beethoven 30 years to complete the 9th Symphony.  Great works of art can't be rushed!

Why thank you, Minimalist!  I do try to write thoughtfully.  We must never, ever underestimate the value of some good, petty snark now and then, though, yes?

DOK