Bio

Conservative libertarian.  Webmaster for the Greater Boston Tea Party.


This section of Tom Meyer's profile is hidden.


People Following Tom Meyer

This section of Tom Meyer's profile is hidden.


Conversations Tom Meyer is Following

This section of Tom Meyer's profile is hidden.


Conversations Tom Meyer has Started (23)

Display starting at 23 of 23 user conversations

Tom Meyer's Profile

Tom Meyer
Name:
Tom Meyer
Hometown:
Friday Harbor, WA
Joined:
Jan 21, 2011

Recent Comments

Tom Meyer

Fricosis Guy: It is a misconception that people go to fertility clinics only because they cannot conceive. It is because they are having difficulty having children survive to term.

This may be for a variety of reasons post-conception which Langone does specific research on (http://www.nyufertilitycenter.org/news/2013/nyufc-study-finds-steet-technology-results-high-pregnancy-rate-low-multiple-gestation-and-). 

Lots of other examples that try to minimize multiple births and miscarriages, which are also dangerous to the mother.

[snip]

...One other point, selection of health and motility of both egg and sperm is done as a matter of course now in fertility clinics.

Tom Meyer: I'm being purely speculative, but perhaps we can pre-screen eggs so that only genetically healthy can be fertilized (still leaves the problem of what to do about sperm, I know). 

My bad: I should have said:

[P]eople go to a fertility clinic because they're having trouble having a baby, not because they're perfectly fertile but worried about the health of any early stage embryos whose lives might be created and ended without their knowledge.

Tom Meyer

Midget Faded Rattlesnake

Suppose person X believes that abortion is murder in God's eyes. Suppose X also believes that the legal system cannot afford to prosecute abortion as murder because it does not share God's omniscience. Are X's beliefs mutually incompatible? I think not.

The omniscience you're referring to here regards evidence, correct?  If so, I agree that is sensible.

Midget Faded Rattlesnake

Pro-lifers hurt themselves when they fail to articulate practical, historically-grounded guidelines for laws criminalizing abortion. That scares non-pro-lifers into fearing that pro-lifers want suspected abortions to be investigated as if they were first-degree murders, even though practical considerations of evidence and burden of proof obviously make that impossible.

  1. Thank you!
  2. Not in the case of late-term abortions.  If Kermit Gosnell is a murderer -- which I think is true -- and if we know who the women are who sought his services, then it only seems reasonable to me to prosecute them and perhaps their partners for soliciting murder.
Tom Meyer

Fricosis Guy:

3. Human experiment protocols make such research very controversial and difficult in the first place. As you'll note from some of the Langone research, much of our knowledge is inferred from experiments done on other mammals.

Fair point.

Fricosis Guy:

4. As suggested by the comments of KC and Katie, prolifers know how life begins very well and how it can be disrupted. What you call "resignation" is perhaps better classed "realism" about the difficulty in solving those early miscarriages.

I don't accept that.

We spend untold treasure finding ways to save lives of those who would have been written off only decades ago.  If human life is equally valuable at all stages of development,it seems reasonable to expect similar investment.

Perhaps there's nothing we can do currently, but -- given the gravity of the situation (the deaths of millions of children each year) -- it seems morally incumbent on pro-lifers to find ways to reduce the incidence of fatal genetic errors.  I'm being purely speculative, but perhaps we can pre-screen eggs so that only genetically healthy can be fertilized (still leaves the problem of what to do about sperm, I know).

Tom Meyer

Thank you, this is very interesting.  Before I go into specifics, I should say that I stand (at least somewhat) corrected.

Fricosis Guy:

  1. I'm not sure this first point is true [that pro-lifers aren't interested in reducing early embryos mortality] and besides, it ignores an obvious rebuttal. Don't many prolifers get mocked for their warnings on such issues re: heavy contraception use and delayed childbearing? 

Fair point on the latter one, but this still sounds like a weak response given that we are talking about the life & death of a child.

2. You are unaware of prolifers funding such research. Fertility is a point of emphasis at the NYC Langone Center (http://www.nyufertilitycenter.org/). FYI, Ken Langone was made a Knight of St. Gregory by Pope Benedict XVI.

Fertility clinics don't address my question: people go to a fertility clinic because they're having trouble conceiving  not because they're perfectly fertile but worried about the health of any early stage embryos whose lives might be created and ended without their knowledge.

That said, the assisted hatching does sound like the exact kind of research I had in mind, so I stand corrected.

Edited 9 hours ago
Tom Meyer

Midget Faded Rattlesnake

QuickerBrownFox:

1) How should the criminal justice system treat a mother who has aborted her child?

I think the best place to start looking for an answer is in our legal history, first in Anglo-American common law, then in English canon law.

According to this source, it wasn't until the nineteenth century that abortion became a matter for legislation rather than common law. Before then, abortion before quickening generally went unpunished by common law, and was punished with penance by canon law, while abortion after quickening was treated as a very grave misdemeanor in common law, and as quasi-homicide in canon law.

Midge,

Would you agree that this tradition -- which strikes me as quite sensible -- is incompatible with calling abortion "murder"?

Tom Meyer

skipsul:

1.  Marcus Livinius Crassus:  he started a fire brigade in Rome which had a certain mercenary rep.

Marcus Licinius Crassus, Skip.

It's worth noting that Crassus was truly the worst kind of corpratist, making a great deal of his wealth buying-up the auctions of Sulla's condemned political enemies.  And while the sources never say so explicitly, I'd wager good money that anyone who decided to start a rival fire brigade to compete with Crassus' was likely visited in the night by heavily-muscled "business associates" of the Triumvir.

He was far more a high-born gangster than a vicious John Galt.

Edited 12 hours ago
Tom Meyer

Many thanks for the clarifications.

Question for the doctors: when does an embryo become a fetus?  The wiki article states the 9th week of pregnancy.  Is that correct?

Tom Meyer

Keith Bruzelius

Tom Meyer

Hey Sir, I'm not saying that. I think there has been a lot of research done on helping babies survive. They even operate on babies in the womb. But, with the technology we have, there are limitations. There is research ongoing trying to save children. You appear to think that Pro-Life forces are not a part of those efforts. 

I stand by my statement that you are trying everything to make Pro-Life people sound like hypocrites. 

What is your problem with them?

I don't have a problem with pro-lifers and I haven't called them hypocrites.

I said I find a contradiction between their thinking (that all human life is infinitely sacred) and their actions (showing relatively little interest in preventing  early natural miscarriages).

KC and Katie O provided substantive answers to my question -- appreciated, you two -- and I have conceded some ground to each of them, though I think the point still stands that pro-lifers' rhetoric often outstrips their actions.  I hoped this discussion would avoid the direction it took, but Salvatore makes the same point.

Tom Meyer

Katie O: Tom, I think we've been round on this in another post, but this seems like it could be key...

Tom Meyer

-- I find it hard to believe that nothing that can be done preventatively (e.g., to ensure that a higher proportion ofotherwise healthy fertilized eggsimplant).

Vast numbers of these early miscarriages are because the fertilized eggs arenothealthy. They have genetic issues that will not allow them to develop. Looking for a "cure" for natural death of these embryos would be as futile as looking for the fountain of youth.

There, you have me; I concede there's (currently) little we can do in such situations.

Katie O: 

As far as the healthy fertilized eggs go....infertility treatment is Big business with Tons of research and money poured into it. Not to mention the personal sacrifice by the mothers who cash in their savings, medicate, inject, and stay on bed rest to ensure that these healthy embryos implant and thrive.

But only among people having trouble conceiving.  Is there interest among women who can conceive to find ways to ensure that as many healthy fertilized eggs implant as possible?  Not to my knowledge.

Tom Meyer
Edited on May 20, 2013 at 11:51pm
Tom Meyer

Keith Bruzelius

I think you are missing the fact that most Pro-Life folks do not believe in playing God, and you appear to want to use your arguments to label Pro-Life people hypocrites.

Preventing natural causes of death is "playing God"?

Keith Bruzelius

Tom Meyer:  . . .

  1. Pro-lifers argue that newly-fertilized embryos are of equal moral worth to human life at all other stages.
  2. Pro-lifers -- at least as much as everyone else -- believe in funding medical research to decrease mortality.
  3. HOWEVER, pro-lifers express relatively little interest in discovering ways to mitigate the astronomically high fetal mortality rates in early-stage pregnancy.

...Also, in your first list, #3 bothers me. How do you know that?

For crissakes, this began when I suggested asking Ron Bailey whether or not my impression is correct!  I am unaware of such research and -- when I've asked pro-lifers for evidence of it -- I've been consistently met with indifference or resignation.

Edited on May 20, 2013 at 11:12pm
Tom Meyer

KC Mulville

Tom Meyer

My point is that given how much we spend on medical care & research to mitigate other forms of natural mortality, it seems odd that pro-lifers' reaction to natural miscarriage rates is a shrug of the shoulders.

It might seem strange only if you assume that medical science should be as capable of preventing natural miscarriages as it's capable of preventing other disease. I certainly don't make that assumption, especially since most of these "spontaneous" abortions occur before the woman is even aware that she's pregnant. It would be a massive (not to mention intrusive) process to examine every possible pregnancy, diagnose what of a million things could have gone wrong, devise a quick-acting treatment ... all for a completely natural process.

Fair point regarding intrusiveness.

But stipulating that I am not an MD -- which, again, is why I'd like to ask Ron Bailey the question -- I find it hard to believe that nothing that can be done preventatively (e.g., to ensure that a higher proportion of otherwise healthy fertilized eggs implant).

Again we're talking about the deaths of tens of millions of people a year.

Tom Meyer

KC Mulville

Tom Meyer: 

  1. HOWEVER, pro-lifers express relatively little interest in discovering ways to mitigate the astronomically high fetal mortality rates in early-stage pregnancy.

Mortality rates are high in early-stage pregnancy for natural reasons. No one thinks the mother is trying to kill the baby. 

Nor do I, as I have said twice.

KC Mulville

What makes you think that's hypocritical?

I never said it was hypocritical.

My point is that given how much we spend on medical care & research to mitigate other forms of natural mortality, it seems odd that pro-lifers' reaction to natural miscarriage rates is a shrug of the shoulders.

Pro-lifers -- and most other folks, including myself -- are willing to spend tremendous resources to save the lives of mid-to-late stage fetuses; the same does not appear to be true for early stage ones.  That doesn't seem to conform with the idea that their lives are infinitely sacred.

Tom Meyer

Here's what I'm getting at:

  1. Pro-lifers argue that newly-fertilized embryos are of equal moral worth to human life at all other stages.
  2. Pro-lifers -- at least as much as everyone else -- believe in funding medical research to decrease mortality.
  3. HOWEVER, pro-lifers express relatively little interest in discovering ways to mitigate the astronomically high fetal mortality rates in early-stage pregnancy.

Assuming those three are correct, this implies one of the following must be true:

  1. When push-comes-to-shove, pro-lifers do not actually believe that all life is equally precious.;
  2. Pro-lifers do not believe newly-fertilized embryos are worthy of research dollars, despite believing that newly-fertilized embryos are equal to humans at other stages of development; or
  3. Pro-lifers are funding this research and I am unaware of it; alternately, previous research into the matter indicated that nothing feasible can be done about it.

Have I missed something?

Edited on May 20, 2013 at 9:06pm
Tom Meyer
Katie O: What about those anti-death penalty folks and their blatant disregard for inmates that eventually die without being executed...the statistics are staggering! Fully 100%!!!

Katie, I concede there is a huge distinction between murder and natural death.

I don't think this analogy works because the death penalty debate doesn't revolve around issues of the humanity/personhood of the criminals, only whether their deeds warrant execution by the state.  In contrast, the abortion debate is all about what counts as a human/person.

Tom Meyer

Salvatore Padula

Xennady

Salvatore Padula

If your argument is that the pope was dishonest in his statement it seems like it would be difficult to make the argument at all without "calling him a liar."

True enough.

But as I think I said earlier in the thread- probably three or four times- I don't think the pope is lying.

I think he is wrongly describing the thoroughly corrupt kleptocracy currently ill-governing the Western world as "free market capitalism."

It aint. ยท 10 minutes ago

So in response to the argument that the pope is being dishonest, your response is that he is merely being grossly ignorant?

Could we all agree that Francis was factually incorrect?

Welcome Visitor!
Join  or  Sign In

Become a Member to enjoy the full benefits of Ricochet:

Ricochet: The Right People, The Right Tone, The Right Place.  Join today!

Already a Member? Sign In