Roe v Wade is on deck

[Bomb#20]

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

…

…

If you really thought life makes the moral difference between a brick and a dog, and not sentience, then …

Alternatively… he doesn’t think sentience has any role in morality at all.

You’re assuming his moral framework resembles that of the majority of people brought up with western-style democratic values.

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.

The thing is, we make moral judgments because we evolved to— there’s a gadget in our brains whose job is to do that. But it’s a judge, not a legislator. It was naturally selected to be good at evaluating specific cases, not to be good at evaluating broad generalizations. Consequently, people are enormously more likely to agree on cases than on principles; what someone else thinks should be done is apt to be a much more reliable predictor of what you think should be done than your own declared moral criteria are. Ld’s endless flipping between explanations for the sake of evading the obvious simple explanation that he cares about sentience and nervous system complexity like a normal person shows he lacks self-knowledge. But he only lacks self-knowledge because everyone lacks self-knowledge.

Typical example: Utiltarianism is trivially wrong. It implies that if gladiator fights weren’t a good thing, the problem was the gladiators’ suffering outweighed the audience’s pleasure, and that’s because the Romans didn’t have enough people watching, and nowadays we can fix that problem by televising the fights. But if you point this out to a Utilitarian he won’t say we should do that; he’ll say gladiator fights are still bad, same as a normal person. He’ll just come up with some wildly strained argument for why Utilitarianism doesn’t actually imply they’re good. Humans are great at judging morality, but we suck at judging moral theories.

 

[Elixir]

we suck at judging moral theories.

That’s why I embrace a-morality vs immorality.
It would be great fun to go outside right now and test my pellet gun marksmanship shooting at the pick-a-pens that are making me mad lately. (Most locals have .17 cal rifles for the purpose). But i don’t want to feel the way it would make me feel to injure or kill any of them. So I’m not gonna do it. No moral choice or consideration of sentience involved. In fact, if I was ten years old I would almost certainly leap at the chance.

 

[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.

The thing is, we make moral judgments because we evolved to— there’s a gadget in our brains whose job is to do that. But it’s a judge, not a legislator. It was naturally selected to be good at evaluating specific cases, not to be good at evaluating broad generalizations. Consequently, people are enormously more likely to agree on cases than on principles; what someone else thinks should be done is apt to be a much more reliable predictor of what you think should be done than your own declared moral criteria are. Ld’s endless flipping between explanations for the sake of evading the obvious simple explanation that he cares about sentience and nervous system complexity like a normal person shows he lacks self-knowledge. But he only lacks self-knowledge because everyone lacks self-knowledge.

I answer stupid questions that add context - that is not flipping between anything. Please keep your slanderous excuses for your failure to understand my view to yourself.

Humans are great at judging morality, but we suck at judging moral theories.

I agree and I appreciate the irony.

 

[Bomb#20]

Yeah, you feel the need to come rescue the damsel in distress.

…. It might be worth considering why this forum tacitly allows dishonest and malicious falsehoods about some - but only some - members. …

I don’t think that’s what’s going on. I think the forum allows that about everyone — I don’t recall ever seeing anyone infracted or even edited for libeling other people. The statistical imbalance in who you’re seeing it done to looks to me like it reflects who the preferred targets are of the subset of members who go in for that sort of behavior.

 

[Arctish]

There is something I've been meaning to add to this discussion but I haven't found the right place to do it, so I'm just going to post a kind of non-sequitur here.

Even though Alaska doesn't have gestational limits or diagnostic requirements that must be met in order for doctors to perform an abortion, it did ban the Dilation and Extraction procedure, aka partial-birth abortions. The ban had nothing to do with best medical practices and everything to do with people's emotions.

The D&E procedure is where doctors dilate a pregnant woman's cervix enough to permit her fetus to pass through into her vagina. If the fetus presents feet-first, the torso and limbs are drawn from the uterus then the head is pierced and compressed so it will pass through as well. If the head is lower then the fetus is taken out head first but not in a way that preserves its life. The procedure was developed because it is less dangerous for the pregnant women than other methods.

The arguments that arose when the particulars of the method became widely known is where allegations of doctors killing babies moments before they're born originates. It sounds horrific. And it is.

However,

the procedure was only ever performed when severe fetal defects like hydrocephaly were detected late in the pregnancy or when the life of the mother was endangered. It was only ever done after the decision to abort had been made by doctors using their best judgement and in accordance with established guidelines and medical ethics. If it was determined that an abortion was medically necessary or advisable, then obviously the least dangerous method is the one that should be used.

However,

doctors in my state can't use that one because people had strong negative emotional reactions to descriptions of it. Women up here must endure more risky and damaging procedures because the safest method isn't an option. And that's not good.

IMO it's an example of how pro-life legislation becomes pro-death when it's enacted. The decision to abort a pregnancy is one thing. Putting women in needless danger is something else. The safest option for medical treatment should always be available even if the description of the method is disturbing.

 

[Bomb#20]

In this national debate “On demand” qualifies an abortion to differentiate it rhetorically from abortions performed due to medical necessity, determined by Church andr State.

… But let’s pretend you’re right for the sake of discussion… 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?

Because a fetus two weeks prior to delivery is a baby, and you goddamned know it. It’s not a shocking idea to expect a good reason for killing a bsby.

Why is it anybody’s business if a parent kills their newborn? Or toddler? Or dependent elderly parent?

Where is your proof that a fetus two weeks prior to term is aborted?

This is a stupid demand.

Well, the way the conversation was going to go from there was predictable.

You keep overestimating your opponents’ ability to follow complicated chains of reasoning. The demand was stupid because you didn’t claim a 38-week fetus is aborted. She assumed you were claiming that, because she didn’t understand why it makes sense to point out that that’s a baby unless someone actually aborts that late. You were presenting a reductio ad absurdum — pointing out that her hypothesis that it’s nobody’s business and there’s no reason to make the distinction implies that it’s okay to kill a 38-week fetus for non-medical reasons. Since that’s an absurd consequence the hypothesis must have been wrong. The logic alone is sufficient to disprove the hypothesis— an actual murdered baby isn’t needed for your argument to be valid, because true premises don’t have false implications. My point is, that’s a complicated argument. You have to spell all that out explicitly if you’re to have any hope that she’ll understand why you brought up 38-week fetuses, and not conclude your argument must rely on the premise that they really do get aborted.

If you tell her her demand is stupid but you don’t explain why it’s stupid, of course she’s going to take for granted that you were claiming they happen, and she’ll assume the reason you think the demand was stupid is you must think it’s perfectly obvious that they happen and she can google up examples for herself. And then you’ll be talking past each other for the rest of the discussion.

Your opponents are logically challenged. You need to take that into account when you design your arguments for their consumption.

 

[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.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

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.

This is a very simple question you yourself could answer, if you pay attention at all. Legally speaking, "any live birth outside the womb, regardless of gestational age, is legally recognized as a person born alive with full legal and human rights". No one who's pro-choice has an issue with that. Try a different argument. I'm told you're supposed to be super good with logic though, so it's a bit strange you ignored that bit.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Why should I have a preconception that someone who is pro-choice would be OK with killing a premature baby, when it's obviously outside of the womb?

 

[Toni]

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.

 

[Elixir]

Yeah, you feel the need to come rescue the damsel in distress.

…. It might be worth considering why this forum tacitly allows dishonest and malicious falsehoods about some - but only some - members. …

I don’t think that’s what’s going on. I think the forum allows that about everyone — I don’t recall ever seeing anyone infracted or even edited for libeling other people. The statistical imbalance in who you’re seeing it done to looks to me like it reflects who the preferred targets are of the subset of members who go in for that sort of behavior.

Hoo boy, if you could put names and faces to those infractors, we could clean this place up in a hurry!

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Yeah, you feel the need to come rescue the damsel in distress.

…. It might be worth considering why this forum tacitly allows dishonest and malicious falsehoods about some - but only some - members. …

I don’t think that’s what’s going on. I think the forum allows that about everyone — I don’t recall ever seeing anyone infracted or even edited for libeling other people. The statistical imbalance in who you’re seeing it done to looks to me like it reflects who the preferred targets are of the subset of members who go in for that sort of behavior.

I thought you only focused on logic.

 

[Bomb#20]

Yeah, you feel the need to come rescue the damsel in distress.

…. It might be worth considering why this forum tacitly allows dishonest and malicious falsehoods about some - but only some - members. …

I don’t think that’s what’s going on. I think the forum allows that about everyone — I don’t recall ever seeing anyone infracted or even edited for libeling other people. The statistical imbalance in who you’re seeing it done to looks to me like it reflects who the preferred targets are of the subset of members who go in for that sort of behavior.

Hoo boy, if you could put names and faces to those infractors, we could clean this place up in a hurry!

The heck are you on about? I just said there aren’t any. Dishonest and malicious falsehoods about other members aren’t a TOU violation.

 

[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.

 

[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.

This is a very simple question you yourself could answer, if you pay attention at all. Legally speaking, "any live birth outside the womb, regardless of gestational age, is legally recognized as a person born alive with full legal and human rights". No one who's pro-choice has an issue with that. Try a different argument. I'm told you're supposed to be super good with logic though, so it's a bit strange you ignored that bit.

And yet another poster who refuses to read the question. Dude, if you paid attention at all you’d know it isn’t a legal question. It’s a question about what Toni thinks. That’s why it starts with “do you think”. What’s legally recognized as a person doesn’t tell anyone what Toni thinks.

Why should I have a preconception that someone who is pro-choice would be OK with killing a premature baby, when it's obviously outside of the womb?

So who the heck said you should have any such preconception?

Yeah, you feel the need to come rescue the damsel in distress.

…. It might be worth considering why this forum tacitly allows dishonest and malicious falsehoods about some - but only some - members. …

I don’t think that’s what’s going on. I think the forum allows that about everyone — I don’t recall ever seeing anyone infracted or even edited for libeling other people. The statistical imbalance in who you’re seeing it done to looks to me like it reflects who the preferred targets are of the subset of members who go in for that sort of behavior.

I thought you only focused on logic.

Well that was a silly thing for you to think. I focus on a lot of things, same as anyone else.

If you mean you think what I said was illogical, why do you think so?

 

[Elixir]

Yeah, you feel the need to come rescue the damsel in distress.

…. It might be worth considering why this forum tacitly allows dishonest and malicious falsehoods about some - but only some - members. …

I don’t think that’s what’s going on. I think the forum allows that about everyone — I don’t recall ever seeing anyone infracted or even edited for libeling other people. The statistical imbalance in who you’re seeing it done to looks to me like it reflects who the preferred targets are of the subset of members who go in for that sort of behavior.

Hoo boy, if you could put names and faces to those infractors, we could clean this place up in a hurry!

The heck are you on about? I just said there aren’t any. Dishonest and malicious falsehoods about other members aren’t a TOU violation.

My bad - let me re-phrase for your benefit;
if you could put names and faces to those writing dishonest and malicious falsehoods about other members, we could clean this place up in a hurry!

 

[laughing dog]

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.

 

[Bomb#20]

My bad - let me re-phrase for your benefit;
if you could put names and faces to those writing dishonest and malicious falsehoods about other members, we could clean this place up in a hurry!

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

 

[Elixir]

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!

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Why should I have a preconception that someone who is pro-choice would be OK with killing a premature baby, when it's obviously outside of the womb?

So who the heck said you should have any such preconception?

You can stop feigning confusion. Laughing dog quoted you doing exactly what I said. There is the suggestion that we should agree with what you said, this is literally basic argumentation. It's almost like there's some bad faith stuff going on.