I'd just like to say at this point I'll be closely following this thread.

Civil conversation, indeed. :P

me as well.

lol.
I think the elephant in the room will be religion... and morals based on concepts such as souls. If we can keep conversation limited to things that are observable (such as science strives to do) and real in this physical world, then we go a long way toward finding common ground or at least common understanding. Thing is, I believe that people will be tempted to dance around the issue (quite unconsciously, perhaps) with statements about "morality" or "evil" without getting down to what they actually *mean* by such things. I will appreciate anyone willing to simply state honestly that their objection is *purely* religious - it would save time and effort for all. I'm not sure there are people that would recognize immediately that their position is purely religious. Seems to me that even strongly religious people crave to find physical reasons for things. And thusly, maybe we can talk about those physical reasons. I'm stubbornly agnostic about how this will go - even while I realize the track record for such conversations is not good.

@ Dexter, I rather resent the implicit accusation that I have been rude in discussing this matter. Maybe I have this wrong and you were not referring to me? I do hope so because I would be more than happy to respond to your points. Maybe you might have a look at mine too in the previous thread, some reprocisity would be nice.

@dm
How can you feel pain without consciousness?

@dm
Are you seriously opposing the idea of consultation prior to abortions? It allows women it think through what their doing and make the right decision. Many abort and regret it for the rest of their lives. Consultation is not a barrier to the poor, financially or emotionally unless there's a problem with the health care system/care provided.

@fulhamish, This is why I wanted a fresh start.
1) ...because feelings were running high in the other thread and there were several pages of people not convincing each other of anything. ...and using arguments that held no weight with the other participants. For one thing, I think the other discussion never got to some central questions... at least not in ways that might convince someone else. ...or they were quickly passed over for the next inflammatory comment by one side or the other. (Which is fun in its own way, admittedly - but is not likely to produce understanding).

2) ...because, despite the fact that I did read the whole other thread, I found it's content to be overwhelming and I wanted to questions that I felt were more central than say Planned Parenthood policy or bible quotes. I wanted to break down the arguments that I felt the abortion question breaks easily down into - regardless of recent history, culture, or politics. I hoped to set up a situation where people would address individual points in a more organized and hopefully calm manner, based admittedly, on my questions. :-) ...but I hope I posed good ones.

If you have arguments from the prior thread that you wish to bring in, by all means... However... please try to filter them so that they are appropriate to the intent of this thread - addressing one of my questions... more if you like - but please one at a time to keep it from flying out of control.

The bible says its OK to abort as long as the fetus is killed by stoning.

Am I the only one who finds the appearance of Ronnie Lott and the war in Iraq a little premature in this thread?

"@dm
How can you feel pain without consciousness?"
lol. A fine question! I don't know. lol.
An oyster I am told has no brain (and no gray matter)... but it reacts to stimuli. Does that mean it feels pain?
A computer reacts to stimuli. A plant reacts to stimuli.

As to consultations - I would be interesting in your opinion and reasoning.
Mine is that consultations often come with an agenda... i.e. prevent abortion... horrify and guilt the patient sufficiently while they are in an emotional state that they buckle. Even coming to get an abortion infers to me that they have thought long and hard about it. How is going to get an abortion in any way a casual decision? ...and would you require consultations for other big decisions - or only this one?

"unless there's a problem with the health care system/care provided."
I would submit that there is. Said "consultation" can involve (as it does) by legal state requirement, several days and multiple visits over those several days and the potential veto of others. There are states where there is only one clinic in the entire state that performs abortions - Kansas, and as I recall, Mississippi, are two such states. 87% of all U.S. counties do not have a clinic. For a poor person, this is definitely a problem.

@Yellowjacket - though perhaps true, I believe you're off topic. Thanks. :-)
@redhouse1938 - ah - perhaps... I don't want to divert into such side topics... the point was as illustrative examples... people do cause pain casually and without legal repercussions... and they do kill innocents in some cases without repercussions - and with the understanding of most everyone in society. The point is, why is abortion different?

I'm not sure if my arguments against abortion are entirely based on logic, or even if I would prefer them to be. It is normal for a society to protect its weaker members, even from their parents; children who are abused at home are placed in different families and that feels very right. The question is to what extent you are willing to protect "young life" against its parents and how do you define something as being worthy of protection?
Isn't the conception of a new human being a "sacred" event in itself, even disregarding religion? Although I couldn't explain the sacrilege of such a conception rationally that doesn't make it any less of a good idea IMO.
Also I'm not sure how "pain" got into this thread. I'm sure abortions don't inflict physical pain in the embryo right?
My main "logical" argument against any kind of abortion - without positioning myself in this debate yet - would be the social argument: it seems there is something wrong with the fabric of society if women are somehow maneuvered into a position where they'd even have to consider such a thing. You'd hope 99% of all sexual encounters between a man and a woman that could potentially yield children due to the absence of birth control would be the result of a well-considered action on both sides, realizing the consequences of this act then and there or at the latest the day after but not six weeks? That abortion would be a marginal issue? And if so what does it say about our society that it's not, and shouldn't we "fix" that?
Again, I'm not taking sides, merely trying to contribute to the "civil conversation".

hey dexter would you want your baby aborted?

@dave bishop, some pro-lifers use the fact that an embryo can react to stimuli due to having functioning nerves as a sign of "pain" and thus consciousness... I would dispute the logic - and perhaps you are too (I'm not sure).

After all, one can getting an embryo to wiggle or an embryo having nerves is not at all the same as feeling pain... having functioning nerves does not mean that pain is felt. Consider: people do experiments where they shock a frog leg (unattached to the frog)... and it reacts... clearly nerve action is happening - does this mean that the frog leg is conscious and feeling pain? I would suggest not. The tail of some lizards, upon the lizard being attacked, easily separates and then proceeds to writhe - serving to attract the attention of the predator and allowing the lizard to get away. Does the severed tail feel pain? I would suggest not. What is missing in both cases? A brain.

@ Dexter well I take it as you can not find an example of my rudeness, it is not there. Anyway you raise some interesting questions. Here are my responses to your agenda. may I give you one of my own later on this evening?

Can a "pro-life" person here please tell me any of the following:

1) What reason is there to stop someone from having an abortion prior to 6 weeks or whenever it is that the "baby" is supposed to start thinking? (According to this Scientific American article, the necessary structures for thought are not even begun to be put in place until 24 to 28 weeks:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=when-does-consciousness-arise )...
...but, regardless, what is the logic in preventing an abortion prior to the time that thought is possible?

> The argument is about respect for life, in particular human life. I feel that one might hold these views whether one is an atheist or theist. I feel that most pro-lifers would extend this from the zygote stage onwards, indeed I used to myself. I am a bit peculiar, however, and now come down to a 12 week limit. Mainly based on the balancing foetal sentience arguments against those of ‘’choice’’.

2) How is feeling pain by itself (without consciousness) any decent measure of humanity? My finger feels pain... and I will have it cut off if it either endangers my life or if I for some reason feel like it. (Ronnie Lott, former running back for the NFL San Francisco 49ers, cut off the end of his finger which was injured to decrease the healing time so that he could play the next game). Also - any animal with nerves clearly feels pain... Any pro-life people here step on ants? ...or use bug spray?

> A religious person, or come to that an atheist humanist, would question your ant analogy. It rather reminds of the debate between Peter Singer and William Lane Craig (I think that it is on YouTube somewhere). Just to say that the view that we are no different to animals (and please do see my later response on your view of genetics) and essentially owe an animal as much respect as a human has caused Singer to advocate infanticide, in some circumstances. He is certainly an ardent supporter of euthanasia too. I am happy therefore not to have him in the ‘’pro-life’’ camp. However, given your criterion it is possible that you agree with him on infanticide. I wonder if you might clarify. And if you don’t agree with him then could you explain clearly and concisely why not please?
The foetus responds to its mother’s voice, has a sense of smell and kicks and moves (as your partner will tell you). So, at the very least, the jury is out on your consciousness constraint. Please see my later responses too.

2) Why is war, which involves the killing of innocents, allowable... but killing of a zygote/embryo - which is obviously far less than a full person - not allowable? Are not both a form of self-defense? How many "pro-life" people were for, say invading Iraq even after finding out definitively that they posed no threat to the U.S. or Europe? (i.e. that wasn't even self-defense - once one supports the invasion even in the face of there being no WMD). And don't use the, we went in to save Iraq... well, in doing so, you killed innocents, uncounted thousands (hundreds of thousands indirectly).

Numbering….. I take it you mean point 3 and this is a separate point?
I think pro-life means being against war in all but the most exceptional circumstances, against capital punishment and against abortion. I think that I am on record as falling into all three camps on this forum.

3) If it is life you are for protecting, then you should be surely picketing the local animal shelters - which regularly and tragically kill unwanted (that's a familiar word), innocent (also familiar), and, unlike an embryo, fully aware and thinking individuals.

> Please refer to my answer to your first point 2).

4) If it is only human life you wish to protect, why? Since genetics are obviously so important to you (being that a zygote instantly becomes "human" in your eyes), then what about a fully grown chimpanzee? Which shares 98.5% of the same (as in - identical) DNA as the average person. Which, by the way, is a higher amount of shared coding than someone with Down Syndrome - who have an entire additional chromosome. Anyway, why are only humans a concern? Surely chimps, who can learn language (and dolphins who actually have their own language), have self-awareness, emotion, use tools, etc. - surely they warrant protection... why are they in zoos and research labs? Surely you should be picketing those.

> I am very interested in this point as I feel it betrays a basic misunderstanding (sorry!). ‘’ what about a fully grown chimpanzee? Which shares 98.5% of the same (as in - identical) DNA as the average person.’’ I would say this –
Less than 2% of the genome codes for proteins.
Repeated sequences that do not code for proteins ("junk DNA") make up at least 50% of the human genome.
Because of the repeating quartet of bases a human and any earthly DNA-based life form must be at least 25% identical.
I guess what I am saying in a nutshell is that even if I were to accept your 1.5 % difference between humans and chimps (and there is evidence to suggest that 5 % might be more realistic) this might still be highly significant, given that all animals have biochemical functions in common on a cellular, organ etc. level.

5) If sovereignty of nations is important - to the point where they can execute people, imprison people, torture - without our involvement... (because they are "sovereign" - and we, who are not them, have no business telling them what to do in regards to things that happen within their borders)... how come we have any business telling (forcing) a woman to do our will who is sovereign over her body and all that lies within it?

> see my comment on being pro-life in the round which I give above.

6) If you would allow abortion, but only after consultation (with, variously, a judge, parents, husband, government panel, doctors [and I mean beyond simple medical consultation]) and a waiting period, then why? What difference does such consultation and waiting period make? - I mean other than presenting a barrier to said abortion... a financial and emotional barrier that can prove prohibitive especially to the poor and victims of rape. Do you expect similar consultations and waiting periods to be applied in other cases of significant decisions - say joining the military? buying a car? buying a house? turning a dog into the pound or paying a vet to put it down? getting an operation (including a vasectomy)? getting a divorce or getting married? having a kid? getting pregnant? These are all big decisions... why is it only the killing of an unthinking clump of cells the one that warrants all the oversight and veto power by others? Do you not trust women to make such an emotional decision?

> It is a major decision that can have far reaching repercussions. I am sure you have read the latter regrets many women express. I will not be emotive and post links here, but I am sure that you have read them. Indeed, I know a couple of ladies very well who have similar feelings around past miscarriages. Thank you for pointing this out, I believe such a procedure will only help in the long run and it should be applied to the UK too. In fact we have many such waiting periods here over car finance, the taking out of pensions and even buying double glazing. Let alone patient choices in, for example, cancer treatments. Why not abortion?

Thanks, in advance, to anyone who honestly addresses any of these questions directly and logically.

> I have done my best to answer your arguments politely and without bringing in religion. Thank you for your interesting questions.

@redhouse, I like your comment. I particularly agree that we would want a society where abortion is rare - and that we address the systemic reasons - such as people having healthier relationships and making quality decisions. I'm all for it.
As for the sacred... that's an interesting and well stated point - and as (non-sociopathic) humans, I agree that we tend to feel certain things *are* sacred - including (and perhaps centrally) children. The question is then, what is a child?... and do proto-children - children under construction - things that might become children have rights? ...a more limited set of rights, perhaps? Like how animals are protected from cruelty? Many questions.

@dexter_morgan thanks for your interesting response. I'm not sure whether some of the analogies you put forward in this thread merit further exploration: you compare the waiting period before an abortion to the waiting period before buying a car. These are wholly different things. The unborn life I'm sure in the order of things to be protected is elevated above the undriven car or the untested wallet?

@dm
I agree with all you've said on pain - seems to me to be logically dependent on consciousness. Not self-consciousness (something often considered to make humans unique) though.

As for consultations, I like in the UK, and don't think they are comparable problems to the ones you claim exist in the US system. It sounds as if advise is not made with the best interests of the patient at heart, but with an ideological slant. I think making this kind of decision is never easy and mothers should be given all the support possible. They can learn about how the state would help them if they gave birth, and the risks - physical and psychological - associated with abortion. Even if they feel they don't need support, they're still likely to benefit, and I think should be encouraged, possibly obliged, to attend consultations.

Yes, I think people should always be given relevant information/advise when making big decisions if possible. Hence I approve of careers/drugs/sex talks that children are given at school to help with these things.

I see we've got a new thread. When is the topic going to change to the super bowl. I am going to say that it goes into OT for so long that the end result will be decided by thumb wrestle or staring contest.

@ ''you compare the waiting period before an abortion to the waiting period before buying a car.''
Well yes redhouse that was indeed one of dexter's original analogies. I feel sure that you will agree that my mentioning of cancer tratment and thereby taking the argument forward was appropriate.

@fulhamish yes that is the kind of situation you want to compare an abortion to IMO.

''yes that is the kind of situation you want to compare an abortion to IMO. ''Thank you redhouse.

In an effort to continue to strive for a consensus I wonder if you all will alow me a generalisation on the foetal appreciation of pain? Do you think that as reasonable adults we might usefully agree that a foetus does not feel pain in the first trimester, but does in the third? Where exactly the change might occur in the second is obviouslty still a matter of scientific debate and, to some extent, individual variation. If we could agree on this it will really help dexter's wish for a productive and reasoned discussion.

Can a "pro-life" person here please tell me any of the following:

1) What reason is there to stop someone from having an abortion prior to 6 weeks or whenever it is that the "baby" is supposed to start thinking? (According to this Scientific American article, the necessary structures for thought are not even begun to be put in place until 24 to 28 weeks:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=when-does-consciousness-arise )...
...but, regardless, what is the logic in preventing an abortion prior to the time that thought is possible?

Well, as fulhamish said, in my humble opinion, a large portion of this has to do with the value placed on life, specifically human life. While the article you posted stated that the thought processes would not be possible until between 24-28 weeks, I have read several sources that have have said VOLUNTARY thought can occur as early as eight weeks, and that involuntary thought can occur at six weeks. Prior to that time frame, however, I do not think that one could reasonably argue that the fetus is not a living organism. As a living organism, I feel that it is human at that point, although I am sure that is up for debate. Also, I hope you don't mind me answering a question with a question, because your article proposed that consciousness doesn't even occur until later in a child's life, so with that in mind, should an 'unconscious' baby outside of the womb be able to be 'aborted'

2) How is feeling pain by itself (without consciousness) any decent measure of humanity? My finger feels pain... and I will have it cut off if it either endangers my life or if I for some reason feel like it. (Ronnie Lott, former running back for the NFL San Francisco 49ers, cut off the end of his finger which was injured to decrease the healing time so that he could play the next game). Also - any animal with nerves clearly feels pain... Any pro-life people here step on ants? ...or use bug spray?

To this question, I agree that simply being able to feel pain probably does not relegate automatic consciousness. However, inside the womb, babies or zygotes (whatever your preference) are capable of developing memories, of movement, and I have heard although I can not validate it, of dreaming. Also, I feel that while we should not haphazardly kill or torture animals, ants and the like are not human, in my opinion. They do not have the same advanced state of awareness, in my opinion, and as such, this would be a different argument.


2) Why is war, which involves the killing of innocents, allowable... but killing of a zygote/embryo - which is obviously far less than a full person - not allowable? Are not both a form of self-defense? How many "pro-life" people were for, say invading Iraq even after finding out definitively that they posed no threat to the U.S. or Europe? (i.e. that wasn't even self-defense - once one supports the invasion even in the face of there being no WMD). And don't use the, we went in to save Iraq... well, in doing so, you killed innocents, uncounted thousands (hundreds of thousands indirectly).

Personally, I do not feel that abortion is simple self-defense a majority of the time. While there are circumstances where the health of the mother is at risk, and I feel like they should have the option to choose at this point, there are many circumstances where I feel that abortions are unwarranted. Now, don't get me wrong, I am not lessening the pain that women go through during pregnancy. It truly sounds awful, and I personally wish the whole process could be easier. However, a large portion of the time, I feel like abortions are undergone because the prospect of a nine month pregnancy and raising a child is inconvenient. In my opinion, this is not right as I feel people should be responsible for their actions. If I knock a girl up, I should have to be responsible for those actions and pay the consequences. If I commit a crime, I need to pay the consequences of that crime. Now, I know that this isn't always followed through, which is unfortunate, but ideally, I feel that's how life should work.

3) If it is life you are for protecting, then you should be surely picketing the local animal shelters - which regularly and tragically kill unwanted (that's a familiar word), innocent (also familiar), and, unlike an embryo, fully aware and thinking individuals.

While I agree and stated previously that the mindless killing of anything is wrong, I do place a different value on animals, and what I believe to be human life in a zygote. This perception could be totally wrong, but I personally believe that humans do have a higher state of consciousness and that is why we have, in effect, been on top of the world so to speak.

4) If it is only human life you wish to protect, why? Since genetics are obviously so important to you (being that a zygote instantly becomes "human" in your eyes), then what about a fully grown chimpanzee? Which shares 98.5% of the same (as in - identical) DNA as the average person. Which, by the way, is a higher amount of shared coding than someone with Down Syndrome - who have an entire additional chromosome. Anyway, why are only humans a concern? Surely chimps, who can learn language (and dolphins who actually have their own language), have self-awareness, emotion, use tools, etc. - surely they warrant protection... why are they in zoos and research labs? Surely you should be picketing those.

Like I said before, I do think we should place an emphasis on protecting all life, but I view the differences between animals and humans as vast. While genetically we may be close to chimpanzees, the fact remains that there is a difference, and that difference is why "The Planet of the Apes" is a movie and not reality lol.

5) If sovereignty of nations is important - to the point where they can execute people, imprison people, torture - without our involvement... (because they are "sovereign" - and we, who are not them, have no business telling them what to do in regards to things that happen within their borders)... how come we have any business telling (forcing) a woman to do our will who is sovereign over her body and all that lies within it?

Here's the thing for me, while a woman does have control over her body, a zygote insider her is not necessarily a part of her body. It is a separate entity that is housed inside her for its protection and development, just like a born infant has to rely on its mother and father for protection and support. Also, I don't think that the government should be allowed to kill or torture people. However, as I stated before, people do need to face the consequences for their actions, so if they break a law, they will have to face the punishment.

6) If you would allow abortion, but only after consultation (with, variously, a judge, parents, husband, government panel, doctors [and I mean beyond simple medical consultation]) and a waiting period, then why? What difference does such consultation and waiting period make? - I mean other than presenting a barrier to said abortion... a financial and emotional barrier that can prove prohibitive especially to the poor and victims of rape. Do you expect similar consultations and waiting periods to be applied in other cases of significant decisions - say joining the military? buying a car? buying a house? turning a dog into the pound or paying a vet to put it down? getting an operation (including a vasectomy)? getting a divorce or getting married? having a kid? getting pregnant? These are all big decisions... why is it only the killing of an unthinking clump of cells the one that warrants all the oversight and veto power by others? Do you not trust women to make such an emotional decision?

Finally, I'm not sure what to think about the whole consultation problem. I do agree that it tends to be biased towards the pro-life spectrum, which is a problem if that is how we want to regulate abortion. However, I personally don't feel that abortions should be allowed unless the health of the mother is at risk, or if the woman was raped (although I still don't think abortion will help her deal with this issue). Ultimately, though, for now, I think it should be the woman's decision.

Hope I met your requirements.

fulhamish is right. We need to obey the bible and stop the abomination that is abortion, and instead focus on the righteous causes of stoning women to death, enslaving foreigners, and (my favorite) exterminating the heathens we can't convert.

@fulhamish, thank you for your fine post.
As I agreed with redhouse, there is some room for the sacred, even in atheists like myself. For sure. Indeed I don't see much correlation between religion and respect for the sacred... I believe valuing things like children is universal (excepting for the moment those who are clinically psychopathic or sociopathic)... and can be easily seen in other animals - who clearly have no idea about religion, especially specific human religions, and their attendent moral systems - yet, never the less, not only care for their young, but clearly do so with emotion - and will often take care of things that are not related - the gorilla Koko taking care of a kitten, etc.

Singer is ::wince:: logically consistent... but the conclusions he comes to are disturbing and suggest psychological problems. I believe that life is in many ways gradational and relative... and a newborn dying is less tragic than a 10 year old dying and a 10 year old might be less tragic than a 20 year old just before a marriage or before he can see his expected child... and at some point, an old person dying is less tragic than a young person - simply because they have had a full life and have less potential future. So... my value system includes some relativity based on emotions and consciousness and experience and personal and social attachments... But, legally one must draw the line somewhere for who is a person - protected by law... birth certainly seems logical - anything later is a completely slippery slope (and Singer is either a fool or worse for proposing anything later).

So - birth is somewhat arbitrary (being that I believe becoming a human is a lot of gray and not a clear moment of ensoulment or some such)... but, like the limit for adulthood, one must pick a time for something like personhood to be recognized. Birth seems logical for several reasons that all come together at birth - but I have sympathy for those who argue against late term abortions because it is, admittedly, less clear cut than a morning after pill or a first or even second term abortion. As to you picking 12 weeks (or sentience - which I argue is later) I certainly understand it... were pregnancy not at all involved (for example, at 12 weeks we laid an egg that did everything else on its own development wise until birth) then we would not be too far away from each other's views.

I really appreciate your consistency... too many people are war hawks, pro-torture, anti-social, pro-execution, etc. while claiming to be pro-life. I can see cases for justified war (not many would qualify) and am undecided about execution - though I do believe that a key aspect of what it means to be human is to be social and care for the sacred - and those who completely are irredeemably psychopathic - and (this is key) have acted on it by killing people for kicks have betrayed humankind and put themselves in a very important way in the realm of simply being a dangerous animal. I believe that execution is far overused in some countries, the U.S. and China, for example.

I'm not sure where to go on the genetic argument. Perhaps I will respond later on that... but basically, yeah... for me, the realization that we are similar to other life is some very big ways has lead me to be more respectful than I used to be and be more upset at seeing a dead animal on the street than I used to be. But, at the same time, we (animals) all live thanks to killing other life - whether it be plants and/or animals. ...and, though I went vegetarian for a couple of years, I am back to being an omnivore... and feeling mostly ok about it (I buy organic - free-range etc.) - but still wonder if I should.

As far as regrets... and people feeling regret after an abortion... heck, life is full of regrets - and there are plenty who get an abortion and still feel years later that it was the right decision. As far as consultation - I posted a link in the other thread about stories of pro-lifers getting abortions and how they went through the process and responded afterwards... and that showed many cases where they did receive consultation - but still blamed and hated on the providers and if they went ahead still felt regret. So, consultation would not be a guarantee against regret. I actually read an interesting article (in regards to euthanasia) a while back that said that those who were presented with more information and more responsibility in the decision actually ended up less happy on average. Not that I'm necessarily proposing that as a reason to not consult.... I'm simply saying that it's a complex issue... and not everyone wants to hear someone's opinion one what they should do. ...so, if done, it would need to be very carefully and thoughtfully done. As to waiting periods for other things... we have much less of that in the U.S. Recently they did away with the "cooling off" period they used to allow for purchase of a car. They used to allow people to come back within three days and return the car because they were aware that people were being "sold" on things that they, given a cooler head back at home, wouldn't have bought. (which is actually consistent with my suggestion that "consultations" can often be coercive and distort what the person, left to their own conscience at home, would decide to do - and presumably did decide to do before they scheduled an appointment.

Anyway - I got to go do other stuff... thanks for the interesting post.

Hey yellowjacket be careful, this is Dexter's thread and he asked us to eskew religious debate. I know how much of an anti-theist you are so may I suggest that you kindly go away and start your own thread? With all respect.

@ Dexter, thank you too for your interesting response. I disagree with a lot, as you might anticipate. We are however pretty close on other parts, but as you have to ''do other suff'' I am not sure how useful a response might be. You are right though most of us waste too much time on here, particularly in flame wars.

*sigh* oh allright. Since you asked nicely :P

but the second I hear somebody start up with the holy-rolling I'm getting back on it.

Me too with the evolutionism (only joking!).