Pro-choice distortion

[carpedm9587]

Based on recent history, any compromise with progressives is a dumb strategy that only results in losing ever more ground. They refuse to agree to live and let live, or to agree to differ.

I'm not seeing anything different from conservatives...

Polarization is the name of the game these days...

[Sparko]

First, I already noted the flaw in your Palestine/Jewish analogy. Second, your last statement is a false right-wing meme/trope that has been circled around now for a while, based on a (willful?) misinterpretation of a comment made about a law that was recently the center of the news cycle.

Your opinion is noted.

[Cow Poke]

First, I already noted the flaw in your Palestine/Jewish analogy.

Perhaps that got lost in your verbosity? Care to briefly restate it?

Second, your last statement is a false right-wing meme/trope that has been circled around now for a while, based on a (willful?) misinterpretation of a comment made about a law that was recently the center of the news cycle.

Calm yourself, Carpe, and come down off your high horse. You're doing that mind reading thing you pretend to hate. We had a prolific poster who proposed that very thing. It was based, in part, on THAT.

[carpedm9587]

Perhaps that got lost in your verbosity? Care to briefly restate it?

Oh, you mean "lost in your lazy reading habits?

This post.

Calm yourself, Carpe, and come down off your high horse. You're doing that mind reading thing you pretend to hate. We had a prolific poster who proposed that very thing. It was based, in part, on THAT.

My bad. I'm used to the whole "liberals want to kill babes after they are born" argument from the news cycle last summer. If someone here was advocating for killing babies after birth, they deserve to be lambasted, IMO. I find it an odd thing for anyone to propose. You don't, by any chance, have the link to the posts in question?

[Cow Poke]

Oh, you mean "lost in your lazy reading habits?

Lazy? It takes WORK to ignore some of your walls of text!

This post.

OK, this time it's not my wife, but somebody else wants me to go eat Mexican. I will look at this again.

My bad. I'm used to the whole "liberals want to kill babes after they are born" argument from the news cycle last summer.

See there, you're so polarized that you jump to unwarranted conclusions!

If someone here was advocating for killing babies after birth, they deserve to be lambasted, IMO. I find it an odd thing for anyone to propose. You don't, by any chance, have the link to the posts in question?

If Sparko or Rogue don't find that for you, I'll hunt it down after lunch.

[Sparko]

Lazy? It takes WORK to ignore some of your walls of text!



OK, this time it's not my wife, but somebody else wants me to go eat Mexican. I will look at this again.



See there, you're so polarized that you jump to unwarranted conclusions!



If Sparko or Rogue don't find that for you, I'll hunt it down after lunch.

Well I am not going to go hunting it down,


but carp:
It was Starlight. He believed that an infant was no more intelligent than an animal so it wasn't a person, and the parents should have the option to euthanize them if they wanted to, up to at least a couple of years old. He stated that on multiple occasions. Have fun looking it up yourself.

[carpedm9587]

Lazy? It takes WORK to ignore some of your walls of text!

Yeah, yeah...excuses, excuses....

OK, this time it's not my wife, but somebody else wants me to go eat Mexican. I will look at this again.

See there, you're so polarized that you jump to unwarranted conclusions!

That I jumped to a conclusion - granted and guilty
That it was unwarranted?

Your statement was very much in line with that discussion, and it was a reasonable assumption on my part. It was incorrect - and it WAS an assumption - but not an unwarranted one.

If Sparko or Rogue don't find that for you, I'll hunt it down after lunch.

Oh I'm pretty sure Sparko or Rogue will be running off immediately to do something that might benefit me.

[Sparko]

Well I am not going to go hunting it down,


but carp:
It was Starlight. He believed that an infant was no more intelligent than an animal so it wasn't a person, and the parents should have the option to euthanize them if they wanted to, up to at least a couple of years old. He stated that on multiple occasions. Have fun looking it up yourself.

actually, thinking about it, I think it was in the same thread on abortion where you (carp) made the comment about a pregnant woman being a slave if she couldn't have an abortion. You might want to start there if you remember that thread.

[Sparko]

Hey don't ever say I didn't do anything for you...

Here you go:

As I said, my criteria of interest is the level of cognition of the fetus/infant, and a useful comparison is how it compares to animals. If it's less-aware than the animals that we kill on a regular basis, then I don't overly object to it's killing. But if it's more aware than even the most intelligent animal, then I would object.

While I'm not a biologist, my understanding of the basics of the situation, is that the human fetus stays mentally under-developed compared to most animals right up until birth. This is because humans walk upright rather than on all fours which causes the human birth canal to be a lot narrower than in most animals. A lot of animals are born pretty much fully-functioning, as their brains develop extensively in the womb. However the human baby's brain gets squeezed a lot as it travels through the much narrower birth canal, which would cause substantial brain-damage if there brain were already developed, so instead the brain undergoes very little development in the womb and develops almost entirely post-birth, with the result that human babies are utterly unable to fend for themselves when first born, unlike many animal babies. As a result, human babies are born with a cognitive level far lower than most animals. Extensive brain development then occurs in the age range 1-4 years old. Almost nobody has even a single memory from when they were younger than about the age of 3. During this period of rapid cognitive development, the baby increasingly gains cognitive capability bringing it on par with various animals, and then beyond them.

So if I had to give a clear answer I'd say age range 1-4. As such, I've got no inherent objection to post-birth-abortion / infanticide / call it whatever you will in the first couple of months after birth if there is some sort of good reason for it. If I was writing a law, I would probably want to draw the line in the sand at 3 months post-birth, as beyond that there's probably enough cognitive development beginning to occur that we're headed into gray areas, and there doesn't seem likely to be any medical motivations to want to explore those gray areas further.

[Cow Poke]

Well I am not going to go hunting it down,


but carp:
It was Starlight. He believed that an infant was no more intelligent than an animal so it wasn't a person, and the parents should have the option to euthanize them if they wanted to, up to at least a couple of years old. He stated that on multiple occasions. Have fun looking it up yourself.

Thanks, I just found it, but you dun guud!

And this...

Thus, at some point around the time of age 3 or so (again, I honestly barely care about the exact point, and if you were to tell me that new science revised that figure down to 1 or up to 4, I would shrug and say "okay"), the developing infant has reached the moral level of being a full human person, due to its now fully-developed mental functions. Thus any actions taken to harm it are fully as wrong as actions taken to harm an adult human, and any moral justification for harming it after this time would therefore need to be as compelling as would justify harming an adult human. eg voluntary euthanasia to prevent extreme pain and suffering or somesuch.

It follows that my overall view on abortion/infanticide is as follows:
- Under ~25 weeks or so, there is no brain function and thus no consciousness, thus the fetus does not have moral relevance, and thus any action can be freely taken to kill it. Such acts do not register on the scale of morality, because like chopping down a tree, they involve no harm to a entity possessing consciousness or higher mental functions.
- After ~25 weeks or so, the fetus is apparently a conscious being, and therefore any action taken to kill it involves harm to a conscious being and is therefore a moral wrong. Such action would need to be morally justified by some other harm being prevented or good gained. While still close to 25 weeks, "because the mother wants to" is pretty much a good enough reason, just like killing a fly because its buzzing is annoying us is a good enough reason. However, as the fetus further develops its mental capabilities, the requirements for the moral justification of doing so likewise develops.
- By 3 years or so, it is a conscious being with fully developed human mental capabilities, and the requirements for the moral justifications of harming it have maxed out at adult-human levels.

[carpedm9587]

Thanks, I just found it, but you dun guud!

And this...

I have no idea how you got to "kill it after birth" from THAT post. He explicitly says, "After ~25 weeks or so, the fetus is apparently a conscious being, and therefore any action taken to kill it involves harm to a conscious being and is therefore a moral wrong." He then wanders into the world of comparative morality with "Such action would need to be morally justified by some other harm being prevented or good gained." I interpret this to be akin to the "driving down the road and the brakes go out, leaving you to either plow into that crowd of people or turn the wheel and hit the single person," type of decision.

The primary problem with his post is that he is not clear that the first two bullets are about before birth and the last one is about after birth. You have to infer it from his use of "fetus." The last bullet is about post birth because human gestation does not last 3 years.

I do not see that this post says what you are saying it says.

ETA: After rereading the opening paragraph, I can see where you might interpret it to mean "OK to kill." Without the context I cannot be 100% sure, but he appears to link any decision about ending life to the moral agency of the person, arguing that it is a continuum. I don't agree with him, but any attempt to read this as "OK to kill them after birth" is destroyed by the second bullet, AFAICT. It would be nice to have Starlight here to clarify.

[Sparko]

I have no idea how you got to "kill it after birth" from THAT post. He explicitly says, "After ~25 weeks or so, the fetus is apparently a conscious being, and therefore any action taken to kill it involves harm to a conscious being and is therefore a moral wrong." He then wanders into the world of comparative morality with "Such action would need to be morally justified by some other harm being prevented or good gained."

The primary problem with his post is that he is not clear that the first two bullets are about before birth and the last one is about after birth. You have to infer it from his use of "fetus." The last bullet is about post birth because human gestation does not last 3 years.

I do not see that this post says what you are saying it says.

selective reading? The post I gave was clearer. did you read that?

[carpedm9587]

Hey don't ever say I didn't do anything for you...

Here you go:

First - thanks.

Second - in this one he is explicit about post-birth infanticide. I could not disagree with him more. So apparently Star DOES think such actions are justified. I have to wonder if this is just trolling for reactions, or if he really thinks that.

[carpedm9587]

selective reading? The post I gave was clearer. did you read that?

I just did. Sometimes, Sparko, people just miss things...

[Sparko]

First - thanks.

Second - in this one he is explicit about post-birth infanticide. I could not disagree with him more. So apparently Star DOES think such actions are justified. I have to wonder if this is just trolling for reactions, or if he really thinks that.

Not trolling. He defended his view and restated it multiple times. And ironically, once posted a thread wanting to "save the whales" - apparently some animals were worth more than a young human life to him.

I think he also cited Peter Singer a few times.