Why people are afraid of universal health care

[Toni]

Ummm... the argument that fetuses are not people, and are therefore disposable on demand, is actually a pretty newfangled idea.

Ummm... the argument that infants are people, and are therefore not disposable on demand (and are likely to survive even if you really, really, want them to) is actually a pretty newfangled idea.

During the Early Middle Ages in Europe, the History of European Morals (1869) by Irish historian William Lecky mentions that infant exposure was not punishable by law and was practiced on a large scale and was considered a pardonable offense. In the 8th century, foundling hospitals were opened in Milan, Florence and Rome, among others, to help reduce the deaths of newborns who were subjected to exposure. Church authorities were in charge of these hospitals until the 16th century.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infant_exposure

If you want to get into it, then let's discuss how newfangled an idea it is that anyone other than (white)males who owned property counted under the law, or that women were not considered fully competent adults and let's talk about the history of black people, and indigenous people in USA and Australia and how much of a person a black person or an indigenous person was considered to be.

 

[Elixir]

Ummm... the argument that fetuses are not people, and are therefore disposable on demand, is actually a pretty newfangled idea.

Ummm... the argument that infants are people, and are therefore not disposable on demand (and are likely to survive even if you really, really, want them to) is actually a pretty newfangled idea.

During the Early Middle Ages in Europe, the History of European Morals (1869) by Irish historian William Lecky mentions that infant exposure was not punishable by law and was practiced on a large scale and was considered a pardonable offense. In the 8th century, foundling hospitals were opened in Milan, Florence and Rome, among others, to help reduce the deaths of newborns who were subjected to exposure. Church authorities were in charge of these hospitals until the 16th century.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infant_exposure

If you want to get into it, then let's discuss how newfangled an idea it is that anyone other than (white)males who owned property counted under the law, or that women were not considered fully competent adults and let's talk about the history of black people, and indigenous people in USA and Australia and how much of a person a black person or an indigenous person was considered to be.

Actually I would be interested in the supposedly traditional belief that fetuses are people.
What culture has thought that to be true up until recently? Is Emily fabricating?
(Looking for pearls to clutch)

I don’t believe such a radical view as “fetuses are people” ever existed prior to the advent of the 99+ percent infancy survival rate.

 

[Toni]

Ummm... the argument that fetuses are not people, and are therefore disposable on demand, is actually a pretty newfangled idea.

Ummm... the argument that infants are people, and are therefore not disposable on demand (and are likely to survive even if you really, really, want them to) is actually a pretty newfangled idea.

During the Early Middle Ages in Europe, the History of European Morals (1869) by Irish historian William Lecky mentions that infant exposure was not punishable by law and was practiced on a large scale and was considered a pardonable offense. In the 8th century, foundling hospitals were opened in Milan, Florence and Rome, among others, to help reduce the deaths of newborns who were subjected to exposure. Church authorities were in charge of these hospitals until the 16th century.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infant_exposure

If you want to get into it, then let's discuss how newfangled an idea it is that anyone other than (white)males who owned property counted under the law, or that women were not considered fully competent adults and let's talk about the history of black people, and indigenous people in USA and Australia and how much of a person a black person or an indigenous person was considered to be.

Actually I would be interested in the supposedly traditional belief that fetuses are people.
What culture has thought that to be true up until recently? Is Emily fabricating?
(Looking for pearls to clutch)

I don’t believe such a radical view as “fetuses are people” ever existed prior to the advent of the 99+ percent infancy survival rate.

I’m linking a brief description of how a fetus is considered under Talmudic (Jewish) law:

https://www.ncjw.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Judaism-and-Abortion-FINAL.pdf


 Does Jewish law assert that it is possible to murder a fetus? No, Jewish law does not
consider a fetus to be alive. The Torah, Exodus 21:22-23, recounts a story of two men who
are fighting and injure a pregnant woman, resulting in her subsequent miscarriage. The verse
explains that if the only harm done is the miscarriage, then the perpetrator must pay a fine.
However, if the pregnant person is gravely injured, the penalty shall be a life for a life as in
other homicides. The common rabbinical interpretation of this verse is that the men did not
commit murder and that the fetus is not a person. The primary concern is the well-being of
the person who was injured.

 

[bilby]

Ummm... the argument that fetuses are not people, and are therefore disposable on demand, is actually a pretty newfangled idea.

Ummm... the argument that infants are people, and are therefore not disposable on demand (and are likely to survive even if you really, really, want them to) is actually a pretty newfangled idea.

During the Early Middle Ages in Europe, the History of European Morals (1869) by Irish historian William Lecky mentions that infant exposure was not punishable by law and was practiced on a large scale and was considered a pardonable offense. In the 8th century, foundling hospitals were opened in Milan, Florence and Rome, among others, to help reduce the deaths of newborns who were subjected to exposure. Church authorities were in charge of these hospitals until the 16th century.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infant_exposure

If you want to get into it, then let's discuss how newfangled an idea it is that anyone other than (white)males who owned property counted under the law, or that women were not considered fully competent adults and let's talk about the history of black people, and indigenous people in USA and Australia and how much of a person a black person or an indigenous person was considered to be.

I don't particularly want to get into it, and I am aware that all of these are novel ideas that would have seemed bizarre to many people from even the quite recent past.

My point is that Emily's suggestion, that "the argument that fetuses are not people, and are therefore disposable on demand, is actually a pretty newfangled idea" has a bearing on the morality or ethics of abortion, is absurd; That if we took her implication that novelty implies error, and applied it more broadly, it would lead us to conclusions she hates, as well as to the particular conclusion she likes, and to which she was appealing with that suggestion.

"the argument that fetuses are not people, and are therefore disposable on demand, is actually a pretty newfangled idea", is a stupid irrelevance even if true. How new an idea is is irrelevant to how true, how useful, or how valuable that idea is.

Her claim is probably false; And certainly irrelevant.