Roe v Wade is on deck

[Bomb#20]

Perhaps more to the point… do you think that a baby prematurely delivered at 28 weeks is not a person, and that the mother should have the right to opt for the killing and destruction of that premie?

I don't think that my opinion matters. The decision needs to be made by the mother and her medical provider.

There are many times where I suspect you're responding with a knee-jerk reaction based on what you assume I might secretly mean rather than a considered response to what I've actually said.

This is one of those times.

There are many times when I think that you fail to comprehend what I write.

My position is that the decision needs to be made by the woman and her doctor. <rest snipped>

Toni, focus. You are clearly answering a different question from the one Emily asked. Drop your preconceptions of what you think she asked and read the original question again, carefully. You keep giving answers about abortion. She did not ask you an abortion question.

No, you are both overestimating my willingness to continue to play games. I've stated over and over that my opinion does not matter, that the decision is left to the woman and her doctor and that all other arguments for/against do not matter.

You think that you and Emily are engaging in some some sort of 4D chess game level of intellectual/moral discussion.

You are not.

Oh well, we tried. There’s no saving some people. If you want to go on saying over and over that you think that after a baby has been born alive his postpartum mother and her doctor should be allowed to murder him, knock yourself out.

Toni never said that. Try to live up to the standards you expect of other posters.

Huh. Not sure why you’re claiming that. Maybe you didn’t read Emily’s question either. Or maybe you’re applying hyper-literal interpretation rules. Or maybe you just aren’t grasping the distinction between what someone says and what he means. Let’s try another experiment. Suppose you saw the following exchange:

Is the sky green?

Yes.

Would you consider “Bob says the sky is green.” to be a truthful paraphrase? Or would you insist Bob never said that, and only said “Yes.”?

I think it’s a truthful paraphrase; I think in normal parlance people would generally take it to be a correct statement of what Bob said; and it was in that sense that I meant Toni said what I described her as saying.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Didn't you know that people have third trimester abortions just for fun and there's no other reason besides that?

Even if that was true, it’s none of your (or Emily’s) business.
Third party handwringing never seems to improve things for fetuses or pregnant women.

Yeah but didn't you know they get to pry into peoples' personal lives for (unspecified reasons)?

 

[Bomb#20]

I’m not assuming that though; I’m hypothesizing that and then testing the hypothesis. He keeps offering explanation after explanation for his moral judgements, so I construct tests that yield one prediction if his explanation is correct and the opposite prediction if his framework resembles that of normal people; and his explanations keep failing and my hypothesis keeps passing. He proposes life as the distinguishing factor so I bring up geraniums. So then he proposes his special relationship with dogs, so I bring up kangaroos. So now he’s proposing our shared mammalhood, so next I’d ask him if he’s okay with karate-chopping a parrot, and he won’t be, so he’ll dream up yet another explanation for why he agrees with normal people without doing moral judgment like normal people, and on it goes until one of us tires of the experiments.

Parrots are also alive, so any one capable of reasoning and paying attention would know the answer of your tiresome experiments.

Yes, they’d know we already talked about life and you flipped away from that criterion because of geraniums so your pointing out that parrots are alive implies you’d treat them at least as well as geraniums, and therefore object to karate chopping them because it’s stupid and callous, but they’d also notice you haven’t specified whether it’s cruel like if someone chopped an animal in the same class as you, such as a dog or kangaroo. And they’d know you were flipping criteria again to evade the obvious explanation that you object to people karate chopping vertebrates because we can feel pain. And they’d probably guess the reason you’re so resistant to admitting you think like a normal person is because then you might need to address whether a third-trimester fetus feels pain when it gets aborted.

I hope that writing that word salad was did not exhaust or pain you. After all, putting words into other people’s mouths is a big bugbear to you when others do it.

What words are you alleging I put in your mouth?

 

[laughing dog]

Toni never said that. Try to live up to the standards you expect of other posters.

Huh. Not sure why you’re claiming that….

It is called reading in context. Toni’s position in many posts is abundantly clear.

 

[laughing dog]

I’m not assuming that though; I’m hypothesizing that and then testing the hypothesis. He keeps offering explanation after explanation for his moral judgements, so I construct tests that yield one prediction if his explanation is correct and the opposite prediction if his framework resembles that of normal people; and his explanations keep failing and my hypothesis keeps passing. He proposes life as the distinguishing factor so I bring up geraniums. So then he proposes his special relationship with dogs, so I bring up kangaroos. So now he’s proposing our shared mammalhood, so next I’d ask him if he’s okay with karate-chopping a parrot, and he won’t be, so he’ll dream up yet another explanation for why he agrees with normal people without doing moral judgment like normal people, and on it goes until one of us tires of the experiments.

Parrots are also alive, so any one capable of reasoning and paying attention would know the answer of your tiresome experiments.

Yes, they’d know we already talked about life and you flipped away from that criterion because of geraniums so your pointing out that parrots are alive implies you’d treat them at least as well as geraniums, and therefore object to karate chopping them because it’s stupid and callous, but they’d also notice you haven’t specified whether it’s cruel like if someone chopped an animal in the same class as you, such as a dog or kangaroo. And they’d know you were flipping criteria again to evade the obvious explanation that you object to people karate chopping vertebrates because we can feel pain. And they’d probably guess the reason you’re so resistant to admitting you think like a normal person is because then you might need to address whether a third-trimester fetus feels pain when it gets aborted.

I hope that writing that word salad was did not exhaust or pain you. After all, putting words into other people’s mouths is a big bugbear to you when others do it.

What words are you alleging I put in your mouth?

I never said there was a single criterion which makes makes you “flipping” tenarks falsehoods as descriptions.

I never mentioned pain (nor considered it) nor vertebrates.

 

[Bomb#20]

What did you have in mind for how to get from the information to your cleanup?

That’s OUR cleanup, that WE could effect, given the details of what YOU assert.
It takes a village, Bomb. Don’t be the rotten apple that spoils the village and upsets the cart! Let you and I set such a shining example that nobody dares fail to follow!
So … what are the names? Let’s get started!

I’m not following — this seems to be another underpants gnomes situation, and you aren’t telling us what phase 2 is. If I give you a list of offenders, what do you propose to do to resolve the problem? If you’re on the list you could always clean up your own act, but that won’t make anyone else follow your lead.

Ah well, I guess we can sample the waters. I can’t give you a list for a few weeks since I’m traveling and don’t have access to my records, so if you still care at that time ask me again. For now one name will have to suffice and we’ll see what you and your village can do with that. Jarhyn called me a Nazi. How do you plan to stop that sort of thing from happening?

 

[Bomb#20]

Toni never said that. Try to live up to the standards you expect of other posters.

Huh. Not sure why you’re claiming that….

It is called reading in context. Toni’s position in many posts is abundantly clear.

Yes, I covered that option. You’re conflating what Toni said with what she meant. People say things they don’t mean all the time. I reported what she said. Of course she didn’t mean it, and I didn’t say she meant it, and in my previous post I made it perfectly clear that I didn’t think she meant it. She misspoke and I pointed it out, as Emily had done previously. What’s your beef with that?

 

[Toni]

Toni never said that. Try to live up to the standards you expect of other posters.

Huh. Not sure why you’re claiming that….

It is called reading in context. Toni’s position in many posts is abundantly clear.

Yes, I covered that option. You’re conflating what Toni said with what she meant. People say things they don’t mean all the time. I reported what she said. Of course she didn’t mean it, and I didn’t say she meant it, and in my previous post I made it perfectly clear that I didn’t think she meant it. She misspoke and I pointed it out, as Emily had done previously. What’s your beef with that?

The pointless off topic continuation. Drop it already unless your life has so little meaning that you get your only joy from beating dead horses.

 

[Bomb#20]

I hope that writing that word salad was did not exhaust or pain you. After all, putting words into other people’s mouths is a big bugbear to you when others do it.

What words are you alleging I put in your mouth?

I never said there was a single criterion which makes makes you “flipping” tenarks falsehoods as descriptions.

Hey man, I work with what you give me. If you want to post a whole algorithm with multiple criteria and with meta-criteria that determine which ones to apply when, knock yourself out.

I never mentioned pain (nor considered it) nor vertebrates.

And I never said you mentioned them. The explanations you’ve provided have been poor predictors of your judgments of specific situations, so I hypothesized a subconscious explanation that might predict them better, and constructed tests for it. Psychology’s a science, sometimes at least. If you object to having your mental processes investigated scientifically, go find a forum without science-minded participants.

 

[Emily Lake]

Being born is not the same as being unborn. Or as you seem to reintrepret 'Geography matters".

Being tall is not the same as being short.

Why does geography matter to you? Why is it okay to kill a 28 week baby as long as you kill it while it's inside a womb, rather than outside? Is it somehow less developed, less able to feel and respond to stimuli, less able to survive and thrive?

We’ve been over this. A fetus is not a baby, so it is not a person. A woman is a person. People matter more than beings who are not people.

I think the being born standard is easy to understand, observe and confirm. It requires no intrusion on the part of state in the birth process, and the very personal and private decisions.

Your position holds true for 27 week old fetuses. With improving technology, the threshold will diminish further. No matter where it is drawn, the same arguments crop up.

What magical rite confers personhood on a fetus as it leaves the womb?

Vaginas aren’t the Pearly Gates granting spiritual status to those who pass through them.

So far as I can glean, you have a belief where if a human is inside a magic location, they can be killed without consequence.

 

[Emily Lake]

I gave you a hypothetical case in which a pregnant woman is suffering from a severe case of pregnancy induced insomnia and her doctor believes an early delivery is preferable to waiting as her insomnia induced psychosis and hallucinations get worse, perhaps to the point where she attempts to induce labor herself.

We can start there.

What do you think about terminating her pregnancy early rather than waiting to see what happens?

It seems reasonable enough to me, assuming it’s the safer option.

I think the only quandary in there is whether it’s induced delivery that results in the child being put up for adoption or not, but I’m not sure I even have an opinion on that.

Genuinely, I think you’re the only person I’ve interacted with that advocates early induction instead of abortion. I didn’t pick up on that, because it’s a position I haven’t run across; it’s a novel idea to me.

 

[Emily Lake]

Didn't you know that people have third trimester abortions just for fun and there's no other reason besides that?

Even if that was true, it’s none of your (or Emily’s) business.
Third party handwringing never seems to improve things for fetuses or pregnant women.

Mm hmm.

Killing people is nobody’s business other than the killer’s. Sounds like a great recipe for a functioning and stable society.

Do you also believe it’s nobody else’s business if a parent decides to kill their prematurely delivered baby?

 

[Emily Lake]

P

Didn't you know that people have third trimester abortions just for fun and there's no other reason besides that?

Even if that was true, it’s none of your (or Emily’s) business.
Third party handwringing never seems to improve things for fetuses or pregnant women.

Yeah but didn't you know they get to pry into peoples' personal lives for (unspecified reasons)?

oh for fuck’s sake. We pry into people’s personal lives all the damned time when children or disabled dependents are involved!

I’m 100% certain you don’t actually believe the principle you’re claiming, but are engaged in special pleading.

 

[Emily Lake]

Toni never said that. Try to live up to the standards you expect of other posters.

Huh. Not sure why you’re claiming that….

It is called reading in context. Toni’s position in many posts is abundantly clear.

It’s arguably clear that Toni didn’t answer the question asked.

But that only because I’m pretty sure Toni and Jarhyn are different people.

On the other hand, I’ve lost track of the number of times on IIDB where an obvious typo or misunderstanding gets treated like literal truth regardless of context and reason.

At best, it was an oversight that Toni refused to acknowledge and kept doubling down on. But it’s also very reasonably seen as trying to evade the heart of the matter and tap dance away.

 

[Emily Lake]

Toni never said that. Try to live up to the standards you expect of other posters.

Huh. Not sure why you’re claiming that….

It is called reading in context. Toni’s position in many posts is abundantly clear.

Yes, I covered that option. You’re conflating what Toni said with what she meant. People say things they don’t mean all the time. I reported what she said. Of course she didn’t mean it, and I didn’t say she meant it, and in my previous post I made it perfectly clear that I didn’t think she meant it. She misspoke and I pointed it out, as Emily had done previously. What’s your beef with that?

The pointless off topic continuation. Drop it already unless your life has so little meaning that you get your only joy from beating dead horses.

It’s not off topic. It’s a key aspect of the discussion.

Can you explain why you are fine with some murders, as long as they happen in a particular location?

 

[laughing dog]

Hey man, I work with what you give me. If you want to post a whole algorithm with multiple criteria and with meta-criteria that determine which ones to apply when, knock yourself out.

I prefer to not exhaust myself for no good reason.

never mentioned pain (nor considered it) nor vertebrates.

And I never said you mentioned them. The explanations you’ve provided have been poor predictors of your judgments of specific situations, so I hypothesized a subconscious explanation that might predict them better, and constructed tests for it. Psychology’s a science, sometimes at least. If you object to having your mental processes investigated scientifically, go find a forum without science-minded participants.

I apologize. I didn't realize your piss poor attempts at mindreading were actually applied scientific investigations.

 

[laughing dog]

Being born is not the same as being unborn. Or as you seem to reintrepret 'Geography matters".

Being tall is not the same as being short.

Why does geography matter to you? Why is it okay to kill a 28 week baby as long as you kill it while it's inside a womb, rather than outside? Is it somehow less developed, less able to feel and respond to stimuli, less able to survive and thrive?

We’ve been over this. A fetus is not a baby, so it is not a person. A woman is a person. People matter more than beings who are not people.

I think the being born standard is easy to understand, observe and confirm. It requires no intrusion on the part of state in the birth process, and the very personal and private decisions.

Your position holds true for 27 week old fetuses. With improving technology, the threshold will diminish further. No matter where it is drawn, the same arguments crop up.

What magical rite confers personhood on a fetus as it leaves the womb?

Vaginas aren’t the Pearly Gates granting spiritual status to those who pass through them.

So far as I can glean, you have a belief where if a human is inside a magic location, they can be killed without consequence.

Coming from someone who believes the magical rite that confers personhood is a magical number determined by you, that is rich.

I gave my rational. It conflicts with your religious beliefs.

 

[Elixir]

If I give you a list of offenders, what do you propose to do to resolve the problem?

Review their offenses, silly! What else would you expect?
Once we find them culpable we can review the severity of their transgressions and proceed with the appropriate retributions.
You want a sentence to be prescribed before the evidence is even shown!
Shame on you B20. Cough up the list so we can get started. I’m breaking out my retribution outfit in eager anticipation!

 

[Emily Lake]

Being born is not the same as being unborn. Or as you seem to reintrepret 'Geography matters".

Being tall is not the same as being short.

Why does geography matter to you? Why is it okay to kill a 28 week baby as long as you kill it while it's inside a womb, rather than outside? Is it somehow less developed, less able to feel and respond to stimuli, less able to survive and thrive?

We’ve been over this. A fetus is not a baby, so it is not a person. A woman is a person. People matter more than beings who are not people.

I think the being born standard is easy to understand, observe and confirm. It requires no intrusion on the part of state in the birth process, and the very personal and private decisions.

Your position holds true for 27 week old fetuses. With improving technology, the threshold will diminish further. No matter where it is drawn, the same arguments crop up.

What magical rite confers personhood on a fetus as it leaves the womb?

Vaginas aren’t the Pearly Gates granting spiritual status to those who pass through them.

So far as I can glean, you have a belief where if a human is inside a magic location, they can be killed without consequence.

Coming from someone who believes the magical rite that confers personhood is a magical number determined by you, that is rich.

I gave my rational. It conflicts with your religious beliefs.

I don’t think there’s anything magical about recognizing that a human at 28 weeks development has a 90% chance of survival outside the womb with low risk of complications, and then deciding that location is not a material factor for deciding which 28 week human can be killed on desire alone.

Your sole argument for why one 28 week human cannot be killed without it being considered murder, but another 28 week human cannot be killed with no consequence is that inside a womb is not the same as outside the womb. So… where the baby is located when it gets killed.

I find the moral appeal to location to be unconvincing.

 

[laughing dog]

Being born is not the same as being unborn. Or as you seem to reintrepret 'Geography matters".

Being tall is not the same as being short.

Why does geography matter to you? Why is it okay to kill a 28 week baby as long as you kill it while it's inside a womb, rather than outside? Is it somehow less developed, less able to feel and respond to stimuli, less able to survive and thrive?

We’ve been over this. A fetus is not a baby, so it is not a person. A woman is a person. People matter more than beings who are not people.

I think the being born standard is easy to understand, observe and confirm. It requires no intrusion on the part of state in the birth process, and the very personal and private decisions.

Your position holds true for 27 week old fetuses. With improving technology, the threshold will diminish further. No matter where it is drawn, the same arguments crop up.

What magical rite confers personhood on a fetus as it leaves the womb?

Vaginas aren’t the Pearly Gates granting spiritual status to those who pass through them.

So far as I can glean, you have a belief where if a human is inside a magic location, they can be killed without consequence.

Coming from someone who believes the magical rite that confers personhood is a magical number determined by you, that is rich.

I gave my rational. It conflicts with your religious beliefs.

I don’t think there’s anything magical about recognizing that a human at 28 weeks development has a 90% chance of survival outside the womb with low risk of complications, and then deciding that location is not a material factor for deciding which 28 week human can be killed on desire alone.

Your sole argument for why one 28 week human cannot be killed without it being considered murder, but another 28 week human cannot be killed with no consequence is that inside a womb is not the same as outside the womb. So… where the baby is located when it gets killed.

I find the moral appeal to location to be unconvincing.

That is not my sole argument. I don’t think the state should interfere with a woman’s medical decisions. If a healthy pregnant woman decides an abortion is her best medical option and her physician agrees to perform one, then neither you nor I anyone else should be able to interfere.

I think once the fetus is delivered is a demarcation that is easy to observe and maintain.

You think 28 weeks (which cannot be measured exactly) is the demarcation even though there is substantively little between 27 snd 28 weeks. You’re fine with murdering 27 week babies in utero. Once medical technology improves, your magic number will fall.