LDS Church uses charitable donations to support Prop 1 battle in Idaho

[I Have Questions]

They see human beings as children of God with a spiritual nature and divine potential.

But what is a 'human being' exactly? This is more problematic than many people would like to admit. Thus, I think that 99% of adult humans in the US or Europe would nowadays agree that they would want to extend that status to a day-old baby. But if you search backwards in the history of that baby, it is by no means a simple matter to decide when something we are willing to call a human being actually appears. Thus for instance, if a single spermatozoon is in the vicinity of an ovum, would you put the boundary there? No? OK, we shall move it forward to when the spermatozoon has been allowed to penetrate the cell wall of the ovum, and the biochemical processes have begun that we call 'fertilisation'. Do you want to put it there? Well, the problem is that about half of those fertilised ova will fail to implant in the wall of the womb, and will simply die: see https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8287936/ . Such dead fertilised ova simply pass out with the next flow of menstrual blood. If that blood may well contain at least one dead human being, shouldn't each tampon be given a funeral just in case? No? So you aren't really being very consistent, there, if you do believe an fertilised ovum is a human being, are you? And suppose it does implant - estimates very, but between 10% and 40% may not survive past the first two weeks, and the only sign of that will be a heavier period than usual: see https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/hum ... ly-thought. Maybe there should only be precautionary tampon funerals for those heavy periods? If not, why not?

OK. Suppose the fertilised ovum gets implanted and survives. How far does it have to develop before you want to call that human? And so on. The point I am trying to make is that without setting arbitrary boundaries it is by no means easy to give a sensible answer to the question "when is a human being first present?". That does not cause me any problem at all. But for people who talk as you do, there is a problem isn't there? I don't mind thinking that I and my children are human now, but that it is next to impossible to to set a definite moment when we became human, since I don't have to bother about whether or not a particular mass of cells is a 'child of God with a spiritual nature and divine potential'. But you do.

So how do you solve the problem? At what stage in the journey to a baby coming into the world, do you set your boundary?

Chap, you’ve assigned a quote to me that I didn’t say.

[Chap]

They see human beings as children of God with a spiritual nature and divine potential.

But what is a 'human being' exactly? This is more problematic than many people would like to admit. Thus, I think that 99% of adult humans in the US or Europe would nowadays agree that they would want to extend that status to a day-old baby. But if you search backwards in the history of that baby, it is by no means a simple matter to decide when something we are willing to call a human being actually appears. Thus for instance, if a single spermatozoon is in the vicinity of an ovum, would you put the boundary there? No? OK, we shall move it forward to when the spermatozoon has been allowed to penetrate the cell wall of the ovum, and the biochemical processes have begun that we call 'fertilisation'. Do you want to put it there? Well, the problem is that about half of those fertilised ova will fail to implant in the wall of the womb, and will simply die: see https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8287936/ . Such dead fertilised ova simply pass out with the next flow of menstrual blood. If that blood may well contain at least one dead human being, shouldn't each tampon be given a funeral just in case? No? So you aren't really being very consistent, there, if you do believe an fertilised ovum is a human being, are you? And suppose it does implant - estimates very, but between 10% and 40% may not survive past the first two weeks, and the only sign of that will be a heavier period than usual: see https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/hum ... ly-thought. Maybe there should only be precautionary tampon funerals for those heavy periods? If not, why not?

OK. Suppose the fertilised ovum gets implanted and survives. How far does it have to develop before you want to call that human? And so on. The point I am trying to make is that without setting arbitrary boundaries it is by no means easy to give a sensible answer to the question "when is a human being first present?". That does not cause me any problem at all. But for people who talk as you do, there is a problem isn't there? I don't mind thinking that I and my children are human now, but that it is next to impossible to to set a definite moment when we became human, since I don't have to bother about whether or not a particular mass of cells is a 'child of God with a spiritual nature and divine potential'. But you do.

So how do you solve the problem? At what stage in the journey to a baby coming into the world, do you set your boundary?

Sorry, that was a quote from MG, not IHQ.

Anyway , we were talking about abortion, were we not? In that context, to my query as to when in the series of entities leading from a spermatozoon about to fertilise an ovum to 'me and my children' we are justified in using the term 'human being' MG replies:

Look in the mirror. Look at your family picture in your living room. Humans.

All the result of a fertilized egg.

Yes, but repeating my question: when, between a just fertilised but not yet implanted ovum and me and my children are we justified in beginning to apply the term 'human being'? Is MG simply answering that the fertilised but not yet implanted ovum should be called a 'human being'? If so, as I show above, that has some very difficult consequences. Is that nevertheless MG's view?

[I Have Questions]

Anyway , we were talking about abortion, were we not? In that context, to my query as to when in the series of entities leading from a spermatozoon about to fertilise an ovum to 'me and my children' we are justified in using the term 'human being' MG replies:

Look in the mirror. Look at your family picture in your living room. Humans.

All the result of a fertilized egg.

Yes, but repeating my question: when, between a just fertilised but not yet implanted ovum and me and my children are we justified in beginning to apply the term 'human being'? Is MG simply answering that the fertilised but not yet implanted ovum should be called a 'human being'? If so, as I show above, that has some very difficult consequences. Is that nevertheless MG's view?

It’s a good question. It could be phrased as “At what point does God place a spirit into the physical body of an embryo?” Good luck getting a sensible answer from him.

[MG 2.0]

Anyway , we were talking about abortion, were we not? In that context, to my query as to when in the series of entities leading from a spermatozoon about to fertilise an ovum to 'me and my children' we are justified in using the term 'human being' MG replies:Yes, but repeating my question: when, between a just fertilised but not yet implanted ovum and me and my children are we justified in beginning to apply the term 'human being'? Is MG simply answering that the fertilised but not yet implanted ovum should be called a 'human being'? If so, as I show above, that has some very difficult consequences. Is that nevertheless MG's view?

It’s a good question. It could be phrased as “At what point does God place a spirit into the physical body of an embryo?” Good luck getting a sensible answer from him.

The answer is...I don't know. What I do know is that humans, such as your children, your wife, your close friends, etc , all had their start as a fertilized egg. Of course there are landmark developments along the way where one might question when does life begin. One thing I would hope we can agree on is that a six month fetus...five months fetus...four month fetus, has the potential to be a human being.

We have our grandkids here with us today. Would you suggest that we ought play games, of a sort, to determine when they were first human? That there may have been a certain point during pregnancy that our daughter might have decided to either abort or not abort these beautiful children?

We should remember that Idaho's Proposition 1 would allow elective abortions up to the point of fetal viability, which is generally determined by a doctor and typically occurs around 23 to 24 weeks.

Regards,
MG

[Chap]

What I do know is that humans, such as your children, your wife, your close friends, etc , all had their start as a fertilized egg. Of course there are landmark developments along the way where one might question when does life begin. One thing I would hope we can agree on is that a six month fetus...five months fetus...four month fetus, has the potential to be a human being.

Indeed. But I don't think it follows that anything that has the potential to become a human being (such as an unimplanted fertilised ovum) should have the same rights as a human being. And I don't think you do either. So cutting to the chase (which is as I understand it, the question of what laws should be made authorising abortion within what defined limits), the 'potential human being' stuff is simply not a useful guide. So let's stop talking about it.

Idaho's Proposition 1 would allow elective abortions up to the point of fetal viability, which is generally determined by a doctor and typically occurs around 23 to 24 weeks.

Interesting ... but may we raise the question of what kind of fetus is becoming viable, in the sense that with appropriate assistance it might live outside the womb. What if the fetus is anencephalic? (See here for what that means: https://www.cdc.gov/birth-defects/about ... phaly.html). To cut a long story short;

Anencephaly is where a baby is without parts of the brain and skull at birth. It is fatal and there is no cure or treatment.

Anencephaly is a type of neural tube defect (NTD). During early pregnancy, the neural tube develops into the baby's brain and spine. The upper part helps form the baby's brain and skull, and the lower part forms the spinal cord and back bones.

In anencephaly, the upper part of the neural tube does not close all the way. At birth, the baby often has no:

Front part of the brain (forebrain)
Thinking and coordinating part of the brain (cerebrum)
Bone or skin covering the remaining parts of the brain

So ... what does the Idaho Proposition 1 say to a mother who is diagnosed as having an anencephalic baby? It can live for a while, with suitable support so you can't say it is 'not a viable fetus'. Should she have to carry this fetus to term, and then to give birth to it? Or can we allow her to decide to abort it before then, even it is is 'viable'?

If you are serious about making law on a rational basis, that is the kind of question that you cannot avoid answering. MG?

[MG 2.0]

What I do know is that humans, such as your children, your wife, your close friends, etc , all had their start as a fertilized egg. Of course there are landmark developments along the way where one might question when does life begin. One thing I would hope we can agree on is that a six month fetus...five months fetus...four month fetus, has the potential to be a human being.

Indeed. But I don't think it follows that anything that has the potential to become a human being (such as an unimplanted fertilised ovum) should have the same rights as a human being.

Including life?

And I don't think you do either.

Actually, I do.

So cutting to the chase (which is as I understand it, the question of what laws should be made authorising abortion within what defined limits), the 'potential human being' stuff is simply not a useful guide.

I think it is. Many others do also. That's where the divide seems to be.

So let's stop talking about it.

I don't think it can be as much as you and others might like to turn your heads the other way and ignore it. A fertilized egg that implants on the wall of the endometrium will develop into a healthy baby/child/adult under normal conditions. Your child. Your grandchild. Or someone else's.

Idaho's Proposition 1 would allow elective abortions up to the point of fetal viability, which is generally determined by a doctor and typically occurs around 23 to 24 weeks.

Interesting.

In what way?

... but may we raise the question of what kind of fetus is becoming viable, in the sense that with appropriate assistance it might live outside the womb. What if the fetus is anencephalic?

That is a good question. Under current Idaho law the fetus would go full term unless the mother's life is threatened. In my opinion the law needs to be adjusted so that a situation like this...and others...would have a remedy that doesn't force the hand of the parent to deliver a baby with severe malformations. The law as it is, is too strict. Those that are against the proposition, however, argue that the bill goes too far. I've talked about that earlier in the thread so I will not repeat myself or go down that path again.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

Part of the problem, yes. There is still the larger problem of elective abortions and what the agreed upon standards will be for that procedure.

There has been a general tendency on the part of those that are '100% woman's right to choose' to minimize the harm (to say the least) done to the innocent victims that have no voice.

Literally. No voice...and never will.

Regards,
MG

The crisis of casual, elective abortions never existed.

From the perspective of those that oppose abortion the prevalence and social normalization of elective abortions is the crises. Hundreds of thousands of elective abortions are performed each year. Dismissing elective abortions and referring to them as being "not a crisis" ignores the moral problem at stake.

The regular termination of human life...through choice...is a national tragedy.

Elective abortions make up the vast majority of all procedures. The Idaho law being proposed does not support human life. It supports/condones and puts into law a woman's choice to terminate her pregnancy up to the point of viability for whatever reason she chooses. Am I wrong on this point?

And you wholeheartedly agree with this?

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

The crisis of casual, elective abortions never existed.

From the perspective of those that oppose abortion the prevalence and social normalization of elective abortions is the crises. Hundreds of thousands of elective abortions are performed each year. Dismissing elective abortions and referring to them as being "not a crisis" ignores the moral problem at stake.

The regular termination of human life...through choice...is a national tragedy.

Elective abortions make up the vast majority of all procedures. The Idaho law being proposed does not support human life. It supports/condones and puts into law a woman's choice to terminate her pregnancy up to the point of viability for whatever reason she chooses. Am I wrong on this point?

And you wholeheartedly agree with this?

Regards,
MG

It's interesting that you went back to the beginning of this thread to pick up a comment. What's not surprising is that you left off K's support for his argument:

Part of the problem, yes. There is still the larger problem of elective abortions and what the agreed upon standards will be for that procedure.

There has been a general tendency on the part of those that are '100% woman's right to choose' to minimize the harm (to say the least) done to the innocent victims that have no voice.

Literally. No voice...and never will.

Regards,
MG

I don't find this problematic at all. There was no problem. The crisis of casual, elective abortions never existed. It was something that was cynically manufactured by men who felt they needed to stir up a movement that would save their relevance and power over others. It is disgusting how many manipulative exploiters use "save the children" to con others. Lots of easy marks find that plea irresistible. It feels wrong to them even to question whether the claimed crisis exists. See the MAGA conspiracy theories about adrenochrome and Pizzagate. See Tim Ballard, the LDS con artist who allegedly pressured women into sex, as he pretended to "save the children." His work was being uncritically supported by thousands of well-meaning dupes.

I have run out of patience with these manipulators and cons. The anti-abortion movement, however sincerely supported by concerned, good-hearted people, is a cynical political fraud that is all about taking power away from women and handing it to men.

[MG 2.0]

The crisis of casual, elective abortions never existed.

From the perspective of those that oppose abortion the prevalence and social normalization of elective abortions is the crises. Hundreds of thousands of elective abortions are performed each year. Dismissing elective abortions and referring to them as being "not a crisis" ignores the moral problem at stake.

The regular termination of human life...through choice...is a national tragedy.

Elective abortions make up the vast majority of all procedures. The Idaho law being proposed does not support human life. It supports/condones and puts into law a woman's choice to terminate her pregnancy up to the point of viability for whatever reason she chooses. Am I wrong on this point?

And you wholeheartedly agree with this?

Regards,
MG

Your preceding post didn't address the substance of my post. You cut and pasted Kishkumen to no real effect/substance.

You left me nothing to respond to.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

And the troll trolls.