Roe v Wade is on deck

[Bomb#20]

If that were the case it would imply nobody demands an abortion she medically needs. But let’s pretend you’re right for the sake of discussion — let’s pretend “on demand” is the French-style adjective you seem to be insisting it is, appended to the back of the noun to specify it’s the “not performed due to medical necessity” type. I asked what you wanted to replace “abortion on demand” with and you said “abortion”. So you are advocating that we use “abortion” to mean “not medically necessary abortion”. How you can possibly imagine anyone but anti-abortion crusaders would benefit from that terminological choice is mind-boggling.

Can you make a cogent case for the need to differentiate between ‘medically necessary’ abortions and abortions ‘on demand?’

Why is it anybody’s business?

“Have you read The Art Of War? Your enemies are reading it.” - Portia De Rossi

Some abortions are medically necessary and some aren’t. That’s just a fact of reality that isn’t anyone’s fault, not even the Romans’. It will remain true whether we pay attention to it or not. If we abortion rights supporters choose not to differentiate between them, that will not prevent the government, the pro-lifers, or the public at large from differentiating between them. All it will accomplish is preventing us from understanding our opponents’ arguments well enough to figure out how to counter them, and causing us to say things that create opportunities for them to get rhetorical wins.

 

[laughing dog]

True, but a dog is alive and a brick is not and never will be alive.

And a brick is still the same potential pile of clay as a dog. What the destroyed object has the potential to turn into is immaterial — what matters is what it is when the blow is struck. A thirty-week fetus is not a twenty-week fetus any more than a dog is a brick. It’s a living animal that will suffer if someone kills it, the same as a dog struck by a martial artist.

No. Not alive is not alive. A fetus is alive and a brick is not.

So what? A geranium is alive and a brick is not. You think karate chopping a geranium raises the same moral concerns as karate chopping a dog?

No, nor does it raise the same moral concerns as karate chopping a dog.

Alive is not the relevant characteristic that makes a moral difference; sentience is.

Says you, not me.

If you really thought life makes the moral difference between a brick and a dog, and not sentience, then you would morally object to karate chopping a living geranium plant. You already indicated you don’t.

First, life doesn't make moral differences - people do. Second, I mistyped. My sentence should read "No, nor does it raise the same moral concerns as karate chopping a brick". I would have a moral concern about karate chopping a geranium, just not as strong as karate chopping a dog.

What’s wrong with karate chopping geraniums? (Apart from looking ridiculous.)

Sorry, I guess I don’t need to know. Focus. If sentience isn’t the issue, why is your moral concern about karate chopping a dog stronger than your moral concern about karate chopping a geranium?

I really like and admire dogs and appreciate their value in our human society.

Karate chopping a dog seems senseless and cruel unless the dog is about to harm a person. Karate chopping a geranium seems senseless and stupid.

 

[Bomb#20]

True, but a dog is alive and a brick is not and never will be alive.

And a brick is still the same potential pile of clay as a dog. What the destroyed object has the potential to turn into is immaterial — what matters is what it is when the blow is struck. A thirty-week fetus is not a twenty-week fetus any more than a dog is a brick. It’s a living animal that will suffer if someone kills it, the same as a dog struck by a martial artist.

No. Not alive is not alive. A fetus is alive and a brick is not.

So what? A geranium is alive and a brick is not. You think karate chopping a geranium raises the same moral concerns as karate chopping a dog?

No, nor does it raise the same moral concerns as karate chopping a dog.

Alive is not the relevant characteristic that makes a moral difference; sentience is.

Says you, not me.

If you really thought life makes the moral difference between a brick and a dog, and not sentience, then you would morally object to karate chopping a living geranium plant. You already indicated you don’t.

First, life doesn't make moral differences - people do. Second, I mistyped. My sentence should read "No, nor does it raise the same moral concerns as karate chopping a brick". I would have a moral concern about karate chopping a geranium, just not as strong as karate chopping a dog.

What’s wrong with karate chopping geraniums? (Apart from looking ridiculous.)

Sorry, I guess I don’t need to know. Focus. If sentience isn’t the issue, why is your moral concern about karate chopping a dog stronger than your moral concern about karate chopping a geranium?

I really like and admire dogs and appreciate their value in our human society.

Karate chopping a dog seems senseless and cruel unless the dog is about to harm a person. Karate chopping a geranium seems senseless and stupid.

Senseless and stupid doesn’t sound like a moral concern. Reading horoscopes is senseless and stupid but whatever floats your boat. What’s the difference between geraniums and dogs that makes doing it to geraniums stupid and to dogs cruel?

 

[Politesse]

Some abortions are medically necessary and some aren’t. That’s just a fact of reality that isn’t anyone’s fault, not even the Romans’. It will remain true whether we pay attention to it or not.

That's playing pretty fast and loose with the notion of a "fact". There is and always will be subjective judgement involved with determining what is or isn't medically necessary, even in a room full of physicians. If all medical experts firmly agreed on when abortions were necessary, this whole social debate would be simpler. The legal question would be much simpler.

 

[Jarhyn]

Some abortions are medically necessary and some aren’t. That’s just a fact of reality that isn’t anyone’s fault, not even the Romans’. It will remain true whether we pay attention to it or not.

That's playing pretty fast and loose with the notion of a "fact". There is and always will be subjective judgement involved with determining what is or isn't medically necessary, even in a room full of physicians. If all medical experts firmly agreed on when abortions were necessary, this whole social debate would be simpler. The legal question would be much simpler.

I say abortion is necessary enough whenever someone doesn't consent to being conscripted to any of those things I said previously, "medically" be damned.

Whose demand wins? The demand of whatever psycho is trying to force someone to finish up gestating a fetus, or the demand of the person who says "no, I won't be having that be done with/by my body."

That whole conscripting others to have things done with/to/by their body, even things normally done by their own body, is a recurring theme here, and every time I see it crop up, I have questions about the consistency of their relationship with consent.

Because I keep asking for and keep looking for and keep not seeing whatever justification that should be easily located behind their arguments.

I don't believe in God, I don't believe in Souls, I don't believe in an afterlife or magical obligations to "hurt" people who are "bad" unless it serves a transformative purpose for them, and only if they agree to transformation over captivity, and only if the transformation is necessary for their continued compatibility with the rest of us (and that's not to hurt them, it's to make sure they can't hurt others). The only consequence here is that I don't think anyone can be conscripted specifically to do that work, and if the population that could is not in the population that would, its "tough titties", and the "population that could" for a fetus is a population of 1.

 

[Bomb#20]

Some abortions are medically necessary and some aren’t. That’s just a fact of reality that isn’t anyone’s fault, not even the Romans’. It will remain true whether we pay attention to it or not.

That's playing pretty fast and loose with the notion of a "fact". There is and always will be subjective judgement involved with determining what is or isn't medically necessary, even in a room full of physicians. If all medical experts firmly agreed on when abortions were necessary, this whole social debate would be simpler. The legal question would be much simpler.

Get a grip. The difficulty of drawing sharp digital lines on an analog world does not conflict with the existence of clear cases on both sides of the line. A room full of historians will never agree on which national leaders were overthrown by the US, and yet somehow it remains a fact of reality that the US overthrew Maduro and did not overthrow Richard III. If you call that playing fast and loose with the notion of a fact, you’re playing fast and loose with the notion of a notion.

 

[Bomb#20]

I pointed out logical fallacies in your and Toni’s arguments.

I am not responsible for Toni; she shows ample ability to defend herself against your rhetorical game play. And you failed to address what I said. The fact that you’re in high dudgeon about it, is revelatory though.

I addressed what you said exactly as you deserved, and my high dudgeon reveals that I don’t appreciate being strawmanned. How the hell do you expect me to react when you make groundless accusations?

And yes, you bloody well are responsible for Toni, to the extent of putting in the effort to read what she wrote and putting in the effort to grasp my counterargument to her, since you saw fit to butt in on an exchange you weren’t a party to. My technicalities about the meaning of “demand” were a response to her technicalities about the meaning of “abortion”; I pointed them out purely for the purpose of showing she was committing a special pleading fallacy. And then you butted in, ignored the context, made believe my comments had been in response to some random thought in your head, interpreted them as ascribing that technical meaning to the prolifers, and insinuated I was trying to get away with something. Get the hell out of this discussion if you can’t behave like a civilized human being.

The responses I got make no sense

“Lalala I can’t hear you!”
… not the most eloquent defense.
You shirk responsibility for your own words here, B#20, and I apologize for expecting more of you.
Don’t deny defining “abortion on demand” as an extant structure for equitable exchange of goods and services. It is, in fact a rhetorical structure devised and deployed to vilify those who would threaten or murder “unborn children”. Your childish response to this being pointed out, is well noted.

Dude, I said that to Emily. We’re allowed to have conversations in which we take our shared premises for granted without justifying every little detail to the satisfaction of any rando who might butt in. If you have a problem with my opinion that your response made no sense, take it up in your reply to the post where I said why it made no sense. You know, the one you already replied to but just ignored nearly every word.

 

[Bomb#20]

So? Three days before the due date isn’t the sum total of the third trimester and crazy willy nilly isn’t the sum total of non-medical reasons. As belabored upthread, some women abort at seven months because they didn’t know they were pregnant until then.

Except we are pointing out that there's no reason to believe they actually found such cases.

No, you’re not “pointing out”; you’re just asserting as fact a theory you have no reason to believe. There is every reason to think the author found such cases. Your theory makes no psychological sense. Why the hell would a Christian pro-lifer looking to contaminate the study with a fake late-term abortion in order to propagandize for anti-abortion laws say the reason she waited until the third trimester was because she was unable to get it done earlier because of her state’s obstacles? The logical conclusion would be that we should make it easier to get first and second trimester abortions! No. That’s not how it works. A hypothetical liar-for-Jesus would say she got a third trimester abortion because her boyfriend made her, or because she couldn’t make up her mind, or she was going on vacation, or whatever. It would be an explanation that reflects badly on her reasons, not an explanation that reflects badly on our misogynistic culture. Duh!

If it wasn't a plausible reason it would have gotten rejected.

The thing is I have a very big problem with how the study glosses over something that will contaminate the sample.

Just because you like what it says is not a reason to not look for flaws.

In the first place, what the heck is implausible about the reasons I listed?

And in the second place, you realize you’re advocating a lunatic fringe position, don’t you? The existence of unnecessary late-term abortions isn’t controversial!. Everyone but a few extremists believe they happen. Here’s public opinion as distilled by a neural network trained on what everyone and their brother are saying. I asked Google “do any experts claim third trimester medically unnecessary abortions never happen” and it said

”No medical experts claim third-trimester abortions never happen for elective or non-medical reasons, but medical bodies and researchers agree that third-trimester abortions are exceptionally rare (less than 1% of all abortions) and are almost universally performed due to severe fetal anomalies or medical necessity.”​

So your theory is that a bunch of prolifers chose to undermine their own political agenda by adding to the case for making access to early term abortions easier, purely in order to convince the public of something the public already believe and to settle a dispute that’s only going on inside pro-choice circles. Do you really not understand how ridiculous that sounds? Why would any prolifer even be aware of your fringe opinion, let alone care enough about it to lie-for-Jesus in order to discredit it at the cost of building up the case for better sex education and easier early abortions?

 

[laughing dog]

True, but a dog is alive and a brick is not and never will be alive.

And a brick is still the same potential pile of clay as a dog. What the destroyed object has the potential to turn into is immaterial — what matters is what it is when the blow is struck. A thirty-week fetus is not a twenty-week fetus any more than a dog is a brick. It’s a living animal that will suffer if someone kills it, the same as a dog struck by a martial artist.

No. Not alive is not alive. A fetus is alive and a brick is not.

So what? A geranium is alive and a brick is not. You think karate chopping a geranium raises the same moral concerns as karate chopping a dog?

No, nor does it raise the same moral concerns as karate chopping a dog.

Alive is not the relevant characteristic that makes a moral difference; sentience is.

Says you, not me.

If you really thought life makes the moral difference between a brick and a dog, and not sentience, then you would morally object to karate chopping a living geranium plant. You already indicated you don’t.

First, life doesn't make moral differences - people do. Second, I mistyped. My sentence should read "No, nor does it raise the same moral concerns as karate chopping a brick". I would have a moral concern about karate chopping a geranium, just not as strong as karate chopping a dog.

What’s wrong with karate chopping geraniums? (Apart from looking ridiculous.)

Sorry, I guess I don’t need to know. Focus. If sentience isn’t the issue, why is your moral concern about karate chopping a dog stronger than your moral concern about karate chopping a geranium?

I really like and admire dogs and appreciate their value in our human society.

Karate chopping a dog seems senseless and cruel unless the dog is about to harm a person. Karate chopping a geranium seems senseless and stupid.

Senseless and stupid doesn’t sound like a moral concern. Reading horoscopes is senseless and stupid but whatever floats your boat. What’s the difference between geraniums and dogs that makes doing it to geraniums stupid and to dogs cruel?

IMO, deliberately injuring a dog is cruel while deliberately injuring a plant is callous.
As I said, I really like dogs. I don’t really like geraniums.

 

[Politesse]

Some abortions are medically necessary and some aren’t. That’s just a fact of reality that isn’t anyone’s fault, not even the Romans’. It will remain true whether we pay attention to it or not.

That's playing pretty fast and loose with the notion of a "fact". There is and always will be subjective judgement involved with determining what is or isn't medically necessary, even in a room full of physicians. If all medical experts firmly agreed on when abortions were necessary, this whole social debate would be simpler. The legal question would be much simpler.

Get a grip. The difficulty of drawing sharp digital lines on an analog world does not conflict with the existence of clear cases on both sides of the line. A room full of historians will never agree on which national leaders were overthrown by the US, and yet somehow it remains a fact of reality that the US overthrew Maduro and did not overthrow Richard III. If you call that playing fast and loose with the notion of a fact, you’re playing fast and loose with the notion of a notion.

If you're trying to make a law that treats those cases as different and non-overlapping, reality is going to bite you in the ass the second you try to implement it.

 

[Elixir]

I pointed out logical fallacies in your and Toni’s arguments.

I am not responsible for Toni; she shows ample ability to defend herself against your rhetorical game play. And you failed to address what I said. The fact that you’re in high dudgeon about it, is revelatory though.

I addressed what you said exactly as you deserved

Thank you for your lenience, your honor.

and my high dudgeon reveals that I don’t appreciate being strawmanned. How the hell do you expect me to react when you make groundless accusations?

I EXPECTED you to clarify your portrayal of “abortion on demand” as a contractual obligation and acknowledge that it is in fact a rhetorical device for vilifying abortions.
I was disappointed

And yes, you bloody well are responsible for Toni, to the extent of putting in the effort to read what she wrote and putting in the effort to grasp my counterargument to her, since you saw fit to butt in on an exchange you weren’t a party to.

There IS a private message function on the board…

My technicalities about the meaning of “demand” were a response to her technicalities about the meaning of “abortion”

Fair enough. My pointing out that your “technicalities” run afoul of the reality on the ground, does not confer solid basis for construing “abortion on demand” as a contractual agreement.

 

[ZiprHead]

since you saw fit to butt in on an exchange you weren’t a party to.

Holy crap! You do that all the time. White knighting yourself is your stock and trade.

 

[Elixir]

since you saw fit to butt in on an exchange you weren’t a party to.

Holy crap! You do that all the time. White knighting yourself is your stock and trade.

It’s all good. Nobody is prohibited from responding to public posts. The quality (or lack thereof) of those responses, speaks for itself.

 

[Politesse]

since you saw fit to butt in on an exchange you weren’t a party to.

Holy crap! You do that all the time. White knighting yourself is your stock and trade.

EMILY MUST BE DEFENDED AT ALL COST.

 

[Elixir]

since you saw fit to butt in on an exchange you weren’t a party to.

Holy crap! You do that all the time. White knighting yourself is your stock and trade.

EMILY MUST BE DEFENDED AT ALL COST.

I'm afraid Emily's demons may be beyond the reach of any defenses you might offer.

 

[TomC]

since you saw fit to butt in on an exchange you weren’t a party to.

Holy crap! You do that all the time. White knighting yourself is your stock and trade.

EMILY MUST BE DEFENDED AT ALL COST.

I'm afraid Emily's demons may be beyond the reach of any defenses you might offer.

You post on a forum with Jarhyn and you think that Emily is one with demons?
Tom

 

[Elixir]

since you saw fit to butt in on an exchange you weren’t a party to.

Holy crap! You do that all the time. White knighting yourself is your stock and trade.

EMILY MUST BE DEFENDED AT ALL COST.

I'm afraid Emily's demons may be beyond the reach of any defenses you might offer.

You post on a forum with Jarhyn and you think that Emily is one with demons?
Tom

We ALL have demons Tom. Some demons are more or less obvious to others, and some folk are more or less shy about about letting them be seen than are others. Some of us make a lifetime habit of denying their existence.
Personally, I find Jarhyn's willingness and ability to put some of his on display, kinda refreshing.

 

[Politesse]

since you saw fit to butt in on an exchange you weren’t a party to.

Holy crap! You do that all the time. White knighting yourself is your stock and trade.

EMILY MUST BE DEFENDED AT ALL COST.

I'm afraid Emily's demons may be beyond the reach of any defenses you might offer.

Well. We all carry a few around with us, don't we?

 

[Arctish]

How to handle other people's demons:

 

[Bomb#20]

since you saw fit to butt in on an exchange you weren’t a party to.

Holy crap! You do that all the time.

Yes, I certainly do. What’s your point? Do you see me telling Elixir not to butt in? I criticized him for butting in without first taking the trouble to read and understand the exchange up to that point, for taking my statements out of context, and for misrepresenting me as implying falsehoods I had in no way implied. If you think I did the same on one or more occasions when I butted in on other people’s discussions, feel free to point them out.

White knighting yourself is your stock and trade.

Not clear on what you mean by that and whether it’s supposed to be a criticism, but if this is part of your implication of hypocrisy on my part, I don’t recall ever accusing anyone else of white knighting.