WAR ROOM LOUNGE V22: Cult 45

[Higus]

Same would go for abortion at eight months of pregnancy?

Way to move the goal posts.

 

[waiguoren]

The moral distinction between terminating a non-viable fetus compared to leaving a newborn to die from exposure?

Yeah.

 

[waiguoren]

Way to move the goal posts.

Not really, just trying to understand your position.

 

[Higus]

Yeah.

I doubt that you and I are going to have a productive, good faith conversation about a standardized definition of personhood. Let's just nip it in the bud (no pun intended).

 

[waiguoren]

I doubt that you and I are going to have a productive, good faith conversation about a standardized definition of personhood. Let's just nip it in the bud (no pun intended).

I don't have a strong opinion on this issue, although I've started to understand the pro-life side more clearly in recent years. Obviously, opinions differ widely and that is why the framers left this issue to the individual states to work out in accordance with their own values.

Not sure why we couldn't have a "productive, good faith conversation".

 

[Higus]

Other than risk to one's life, what other reasonable excuse is there to wait that long? Risk to one's life really isn't subjective at all. There is always a risk of course, but there is also legitimate high risk scenarios, that are far more concerning than others.

If there isn't a significant risk to one's life, its not much different to me than just putting a pillow over it's face after birth. I'm sure those people had "good reasons" too, and thought about consequences. It doesn't really make much of a difference.

My point is that just because you can't think of good reasons does not mean that do not exist. Each woman and her doctor have to weigh their options with the information that they have available.

One of the most common reasons for later abortions is because severe medical problems with the fetus cannot be detected until later in the pregnancy. Here are some examples of late term pregnancies that were terminated for reasons other than the mother's health.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/apr/18/late-term-abortion-experience-donald-trump

Again, we are only talking about maybe 400 cases a year. Your options are to either scrutinize each event and develop a long, incomplete, and likely unsatisfactory list of conditions in which you would approve it for someone else, or just let the people involved make their own decisions and mind your own business.

 

[HereticBD]

My point is that just because you can't think of good reasons does not mean that do not exist. Each woman and her doctor have to weigh their options with the information that they have available.

One of the most common reasons for later abortions is because severe medical problems with the fetus cannot be detected until later in the pregnancy. Here are some examples of late term pregnancies that were terminated for reasons other than the mother's health.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/apr/18/late-term-abortion-experience-donald-trump

Again, we are only talking about maybe 400 cases a year. Your options are to either scrutinize each event and develop a long, incomplete, and likely unsatisfactory list of conditions in which you would approve it for someone else, or just let the people involved make their own decisions and mind your own business.

There are also conditions discovered after birth. We don't let people execute babies though. What's the moral difference there? If your baby comes out as a vegetable that is in constant pain, that for whatever reason went undetected, you can't kill it. A month earlier in the womb, and you could've.

Where is the moral difference?

 

[Higus]

I don't have a strong opinion on this issue, although I've started to understand the pro-life side more clearly in recent years. Obviously, opinions differ widely and that is why the framers left this issue to the individual states to work out in accordance with their own values.

Not sure why we couldn't have a "productive, good faith conversation".

A few reasons why I don't think it would happen:
1) You originally called out @Jack V Savage for an opinion on @Ripskater's trolling. Your interactions with him around here have been antagonistic, so I don't suspect your intention was to carry a good faith argument with him, let alone me.
2) You've already resorted to word-games and goal post moving in your arguments.
3) What's to discuss? I take it you think someone is given personhood at or shortly after conception and I think of it more like a gray area that involves factors like viability and the mother's ongoing consent to occupy the womb. If you want to take a stab at convincing me to your side, I'll try my best to be receptive.

 

[waiguoren]

You originally called out @Jack V Savage for an opinion on @Ripskater's trolling.

I didn't see any trolling. That doesn't seem like a good-faith characterization.

Your interactions with him around here have been antagonistic, so I don't suspect your intention was to carry a good faith argument with him, let alone me.

That's a non-sequitur, right? Jackie Boy and I have had many productive, good-faith discussions.

2) You've already resorted to word-games and goal post moving in your arguments.

I plead innocent. Again, I was trying to understand your position. Don't be so defensive. That impedes intellectual progress.

3) What's to discuss? I take it you think someone is given personhood at or shortly after conception

Reading comprehension? I repeat: I have no strong opinion on this issue.

and I think of it more like a gray area that involves factors like viability and the mother's ongoing consent to occupy the womb. If you want to take a stab at convincing me to your side, I'll try my best to be receptive.

Is there any point at which it ceases to be a gray area? 8.5 months? Two months after birth? Again, I think "viability" is a weird concept to bring into the discussion.

 

[Higus]

There are also conditions discovered after birth. We don't let people execute babies though. What's the moral difference there? If your baby comes out as a vegetable that is in constant pain, that for whatever reason went undetected, you can't kill it. A month earlier in the womb, and you could've.

Where is the moral difference?

There isn't a moral difference, imo. I'm not against euthanasia for newborn born with a fatal or severe quality of life condition, but if legal that would be up to the parents and doctors. If someone chose to give birth to an infant with those conditions knowing the outcomes, that is up to them. Honestly, giving parents the option in that situation would seem more moral than forcing them to let nature take its prolonged course.

 

[Rational Poster]

 

[Anung Un Rama]

What is their excuse for letting it get to that stage? I'm a bit of a fence sitter on the abortion thing, but at that stage, what's the moral difference between that and executing it at birth?

There is no difference.

 

[Higus]

Is there any point at which it ceases to be a gray area? 8.5 months? Two months after birth? Again, I think "viability" is a weird concept to bring into the discussion.

Here's my point of view on personhood.
I would consider there being different tiers or even a spectrum of personhood, a fertilized egg at one end and an adult of sound mind on the other, with each of those tiers having different legal rights or privileges based on their ability to influence their surroundings.
The concept of viability is important to personhood because until a fetus is viable, it's ability to live is biologically dependent on the mother's body and its existence is completely dependent on the woman's ongoing consent to occupy her body. A fetus with no ability to survive outside the womb even with current medical technology has no right to life beyond what the woman consents. At this point, it's life is so intertwined with the woman's consent that it does not warrant treating it as a separate entity but rather an extension of the woman's body. When a fetus becomes >50% viable, around the 24 week point, at that point it is theoretically no longer dependent on woman for its survival since it could be sustained medically. At this point, I would consider the fetus a separate entity from it's mother and believe that it has a right to life beyond its the woman's consent.

 

[computer fogie]

@computer fogie

You asked me on a thread you then locked:
"So you're saying they're wrong. Can you prove that?"
http://forums.sherdog.com/threads/big-caravan-of-latin-americans-headed-to-the-us.3735121/page-51

This was in reference to the BBC's fake news and me "proving it."

The truth is, and we both know this, that no amount of proof I could provide would change your mind, but let's be real about the BBC and "fake news."

In probably the most famous example:

On September 11, 2001 the BBC reported that the Salomon Brothers building (WTC 7) collapsed before it actually collapsed. Hard to explain and most people aren't even aware that the building collapsed much less that it was reported to have happened before it had happened! According to the video linked below, BBC was reporting this collapse beginning at 4:20pm with a rumor, by 4:30 pm the Salomon building collapse was being reported as fact, according to this video. This was more than 50 minutes before it actually collapsed. The interview in the above video cut off just 5 minutes before the collapse.

I didn't lock that thread, you made a wrong assumption that I did.

So because of this 9/11 video (can't watch it at work, but the premise a little far-fetched for me), you assume that everything the BBC says that you don't like is false, forever. OK...

 

[waiguoren]

The concept of viability is important to personhood because until a fetus is viable, it's ability to live is biologically dependent on the mother's body and its existence is completely dependent on the woman's ongoing consent to occupy her body.

This reasoning would seem to lead us to the conclusion that a hostage has no right to life because the hostage's existence is completely dependent on the hostage-taker's consent.

When a fetus becomes >50% viable, around the 24 week point, at that point it is theoretically no longer dependent on woman for its survival since it could be sustained medically. At this point, I would consider the fetus a separate entity from it's mother and believe that it has a right to life beyond its the woman's consent.

At that stage, the fetus is still completely dependent on someone else for survival. Same goes for a newborn infant. Yet we don't allow medical staff who are sustaining the infant to decide to terminate the life of the infant even if doing so would make their lives easier. Why is that?

 

[Higus]

This reasoning would seem to lead us to the conclusion that a hostage has no right to life because the hostage's existence is completely dependent on the hostage-taker's consent.

Except that the hostages have personhood, or at least a much greater degree of personhood than a fetus.

At that stage, the fetus is still completely dependent on someone else for survival. Same goes for a newborn infant. Yet we don't allow medical staff who are sustaining the infant to decide to terminate the life of the infant even if doing so would make their lives easier. Why is that?

Again, you are playing around with definitions of viability and dependency and that is not productive to the conversation. If you insist on a tactic to try to trip me up on words, I'm not going to take that as a sign of good faith.

 

[abiG]

I didn't lock that thread, you made a wrong assumption that I did.

Yours was the last post, period.

So because of this 9/11 video (can't watch it at work, but the premise a little far-fetched for me), you assume that everything the BBC says that you don't like is false, forever. OK...

No, that was one glaring example. I could go on for pages.

And the premise is not far-fetched in the least. How the fuck are you going to report a building has collapsed as it stands in the background of your live shot?

Just bury your head on this one, fogie, just bury your head.

 

[waiguoren]

Except that the hostages have personhood, or at least a much greater degree of personhood than a fetus.

Here's my point of view on personhood.
I would consider there being different tiers or even a spectrum of personhood, a fertilized egg at one end and an adult of sound mind on the other, with each of those tiers having different legal rights or privileges based on their ability to influence their surroundings.

Can you be clearer about you definition of "personhood"?

Under your hierarchy, an adult is more of a person than a child, and a child is more of a person than a toddler?

 

[waiguoren]

Was @HomerThompson banned? He had multiple bets outstanding.

 

[Higus]

Can you be clearer about you definition of "personhood"?

Under your hierarchy, an adult is more of a person than a child, and a child is more of a person than a toddler?

That's overly simplified, but yes. It would be more accurate to that an adult enjoys full rights and privileges of personhood, a child enjoys less and a newborn baby less than that. Privileges can be broadly defined, but think of things along the lines of free will, communication, consent, responsibility, etc.