US Politics: Donnie and the Mystery of the Anonymous Op-Ed

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

2 hours ago, mormont said:

This is known as 'begging the question': your conclusion is assumed as a premise. Ultimately, the abortion question in secular moral terms comes down to whether or not you are taking a life, as well as a whole slew of other related questions about the limits of state power, something which mysteriously ceases to become an issue when those limits involve a woman's body. 

Peter Singer makes a strong argument that infanticide should be allowed because biologically there is virtually no difference between an fetus about to be born and an infant right after birth.  Arguing that if there is no special right to life for the fetus moments before birth and after and the new born infant is just as dependent on its parents after birth why should it be illegal or immoral to terminate the life of the infant when it isn’t illegal or immoral to terminate the life of the fetus.  

He’s pointing out that biologically there is very little difference between an fetus that is about to be born and on that has recently been born.  Neither can be defined as self aware and as such he would not extend full human rights to infants on that basis:

Singer holds that the right to life is essentially tied to a being's capacity to hold preferences, which in turn is essentially tied to a being's capacity to feel pain and pleasure.

In Practical Ethics, Singer argues in favour of abortion rights on the grounds that fetuses are neither rational nor self-aware, and can therefore hold no preferences. As a result, he argues that the preference of a mother to have an abortion automatically takes precedence. In sum, Singer argues that a fetus lacks personhood.

Similar to his argument for abortion rights, Singer argues that newborns lack the essential characteristics of personhood—"rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness"^[56]—and therefore "killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person, that is, a being who wants to go on living".^[57] Singer has clarified that his "view of when life begins isn’t very different from that of opponents of abortion." He deems it not "unreasonable to hold that an individual human life begins at conception. If it doesn’t, then it begins about 14 days later, when it is no longer possible for the embryo to divide into twins or other multiples." Singer disagrees with abortion rights opponents in that he does not "think that the fact that an embryo is a living human being is sufficient to show that it is wrong to kill it." Singer wishes "to see American jurisprudence, and the national abortion debate, take up the question of which capacities a human being needs to have in order for it to be wrong kill it" as well as "when, in the development of the early human being, these capacities are present."^[58]

 

 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

And for the record I remain pro-abortion rights.  Fundamentally, if the State can determine that a fetuses life may overide a woman’s choice to cease carrying a fetus it opens the door to other controls over women’s lives with “the health of the fetus” as justification.  Those controls would strip women of their personhood and are absolutely unacceptable.

[Errant Bard]

22 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Peter Singer makes a strong argument that infanticide should be allowed because biologically there is virtually no difference between an fetus about to be born and an infant right after birth.  Arguing that if there is no special right to life for the fetus moments before birth and after and the new born infant is just as dependent on its parents after birth why should it be illegal or immoral to terminate the life of the infant when it isn’t illegal or immoral to terminate the life of the fetus.  

He’s pointing out that biologically there is very little difference between an fetus that is about to be born and on that has recently been born.  Neither can be defined as self aware and as such he would not extend full human rights to infants on that basis:

 

 

Linking what this guy says with abortion is frankly desingenuous, as abortion is always about removing a foetus from a woman's body, foetus that cannot live or grow by itself, and that's a pretty big difference with a newborn.

Furthermore, this line of argumentation centers the reasoning on the idea of killing a viable autonomous being, when the point is for women to do what they want with their body.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 hour ago, Errant Bard said:

Linking what this guy says with abortion is frankly desingenuous, as abortion is always about removing a foetus from a woman's body, foetus that cannot live or grow by itself, and that's a pretty big difference with a newborn.

Furthermore, this line of argumentation centers the reasoning on the idea of killing a viable autonomous being, when the point is for women to do what they want with their body.

EB,

But Singer does point out the arbitrary nature of the determination that a viable fetus can be terminated while a viable infant cannot.  He's a medical ethicist and is asking hard questions about these topics.  He is sincere when he argues that because, biologically, there is no difference between a late term fetus and a new born infant (other than location) infanticide should be permissible under the same logic as a late term abortion he's not offering it as a back door argument against abortion rights.

[aceluby]

18 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

EB,

But Singer does point out the arbitrary nature of the determination that a viable fetus can be terminated while a viable infant cannot.  He's a medical ethicist and is asking hard questions about these topics.  He is sincere when he argues that because, biologically, there is no difference between a late term fetus and a new born infant (other than location) infanticide should be permissible under the same logic as a late term abortion he's not offering it as a back door argument against abortion rights.

Where in the US can you get a late term abortion?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Ace,

This is an Ad for a clinic in DC:

https://www.capitalwomensservices.com/secondtrimestersurgicalabortion.php?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI37vJ1oWz3QIV14KzCh0vEQa0EAAYASAAEgJCQvD_BwE

But in fairness Wikipedia says late term abortions are banned in 42 of 50 states where the mother’s health is not at serious risk.

[Mexal]

12 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Ace,

This is an Ad for a clinic in DC:

https://www.capitalwomensservices.com/secondtrimestersurgicalabortion.php?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI37vJ1oWz3QIV14KzCh0vEQa0EAAYASAAEgJCQvD_BwE

But in fairness Wikipedia says late term abortions are banned in 42 of 50 states where the mother’s health is not at serious risk.

And very rare (~1% after 21 weeks) which is why that argument is disingenuous. 

[aceluby]

14 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Ace,

This is an Ad for a clinic in DC:

https://www.capitalwomensservices.com/secondtrimestersurgicalabortion.php?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI37vJ1oWz3QIV14KzCh0vEQa0EAAYASAAEgJCQvD_BwE

But in fairness Wikipedia says late term abortions are banned in 42 of 50 states where the mother’s health is not at serious risk.

Ok, can you qualify what you mean by 'late term'?  Because the argument presented was about the difference between a baby a day before birth and one the day after birth, but the link above is about fetus in the 20-26 week range.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

5 minutes ago, Mexal said:

And very rare (~1% after 21 weeks) which is why that argument is disingenuous. 

Yup.  But I still don't think Singer's argument is disingenuous.  I think he's sincere when he talks about the arbitrary nature of late term abortions and their legality. 

I do recognize that the vast majority of abortions are early term and I really don't have a problem with that.  However, when we talk about abortion rights are late term abortions not part of the discussion?  Where a Mother's health is at risk they should be legal.

Ace,

When I say "late term" I mean "late term".  Late term abortions should be legal when a mother's health is at risk.  

[aceluby]

1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Ace,

When I say "late term" I mean "late term".  Late term abortions should be legal when a mother's health is at risk.  

Well that clears everything right up.  Nothing like using a vague term and then defining it with itself.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Just now, aceluby said:

Well that clears everything right up.  Nothing like using a vague term and then defining it with itself.

Up to immediately prior to birth.  If a mother's health is in danger that should be an option in her physicians tool kit.

[aceluby]

Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Up to immediately prior to birth.  If a mother's health is in danger that should be an option in her physicians tool kit.

So gestation to birth is 'late term'?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Just now, aceluby said:

So gestation to birth is 'late term'?

I'd say when it is possible for the fetus to survive outside the mother's uterus the abortion would then be "late term".  That said it is a debatable term.  Do the extraordinary measures needed to protect and nurture a premature infant mean it is "non-viable"?  I don't know.  I'm not a medical ethicist.

[Mexal]

2 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Yup.  But I still don't think Singer's argument is disingenuous.  I think he's sincere when he talks about the arbitrary nature of late term abortions and their legality. 

I do recognize that the vast majority of abortions are early term and I really don't have a problem with that.  However, when we talk about abortion rights are late term abortions not part of the discussion?  Where a Mother's health is at risk they should be legal.

Sure, they can be part of the conversation but they shouldn't dominate it. This is the problem I have with almost every argument these days. The focus is on the exception rather than the rule and then the exception is expounded to make an argument why a given law or action is wrong. Out of all abortions, only ~1% occurred after a woman was 21 weeks pregnant and likely less would occur the later you go. In 42 out of 50 states, this is illegal. So why isn't it disingenuous to have an argument about the legality of infanticide and abortion when it relates to less than ~1% of the cases which also happens to be illegal in 85% of the states? 

[aceluby]

1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I'd say when it is possible for the fetus to survive outside the mother's uterus the abortion would then be "late term".  That said it is a debatable term.  Do the extraordinary measures needed to protect and nurture a premature infant mean it is "non-viable"?  I don't know.  I'm not a medical ethicist.

Ok, so your previous link wasn't actually about late term abortions?  Thanks for the link, I guess?  

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

3 minutes ago, aceluby said:

Ok, so your previous link wasn't actually about late term abortions?  Thanks for the link, I guess?  

It's all I could find.  I recognize that late term abortions are uncommon.  Should the ethical implications of late term abortions not be part of the conversation, because they are not common?

[Ice Queen]

6 hours ago, mormont said:

This is known as 'begging the question': your conclusion is assumed as a premise. Ultimately, the abortion question in secular moral terms comes down to whether or not you are taking a life, as well as a whole slew of other related questions about the limits of state power, something which mysteriously ceases to become an issue when those limits involve a woman's body. 

Agree. What it comes down to is this: whether or not you believe you have the right to take that choice away from a woman and to force your personal and religious views down our throats. The "moral" argument is irrelevant. By pro-lifers' logic and their opposition to even birth control, masturbation is the murder of sperm. Is that illegal? No?

Most people I know (and ALL women) say they'd never personally have an abortion, but they recognize that they can't make that determination for someone else. It seems to be MEN who want to take that choice away. Sorry guys, but you don't have that right, at all, ever. 

[mormont]

5 hours ago, Jo498 said:

No, it comes down whether taking a life is permissible or even justified (as it can be when another life is in danger or when one needs food (as in killing animals for food)). Nobody in his right mind can deny that the fetus is alive

Many eminent philosophers, ethicists, and scientists are apparently not in their right mind, then. 

Although to be fair, what 'alive' means in this context, when life begins, and so on, is an active question and so it's possible that you are here defining 'alive' in some way that makes your statement technically true (but useless to the question).

Which then brings me to the point: these are incredibly difficult, complex questions that do not have simple answers. We are just not ever going to get to the bottom of those in a thread on a message board devoted to blathering about a fantasy series. So let's acknowledge that, give the ethical debate a swerve, and focus on the political questions relating to the US political context from here on, please. 

[aceluby]

2 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

It's all I could find.  I recognize that late term abortions are uncommon.  Should the ethical implications of late term abortions not be part of the conversation, because they are not common?

I think they should be weighed with the ethical implications of forcing women to gestate and birth a baby against her will.  

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

2 minutes ago, aceluby said:

I think they should be weighed with the ethical implications of forcing women to gestate and birth a baby against her will.  

I absolutely agree.