RE: Abortion and the Democratic Party Re: TheAmericanPoliticalLandscape Today
Behalf Of Warren Ockrassa To be fair, I think we should talk about the hypotheticals, even the ones that seem (to some of us at least) only remotely feasible or not particularly relevant, because if something is reasonably possible, eventually it'll probably happen. Hypotheticals are OK. As a programmer myself, I am constantly trying to think about what could hypothetically happen with various program inputs, etc. But there comes a point when you have to say this is way too unlikely to worry about. Heck, if we worried about an unethical doctor approving a diagnosis that doesn't apply, they could just do it with a *real* DX that states the woman's life is in danger. Or should we get rid of the police and prisons because there is a non-zero chance that an unethical cop might plant evidence on an innocent person? - jmh ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion and the Democratic Party Re: TheAmericanPoliticalLandscape Today
On May 20, 2005, at 10:20 AM, Horn, John wrote: Behalf Of Warren Ockrassa To be fair, I think we should talk about the hypotheticals, even the ones that seem (to some of us at least) only remotely feasible or not particularly relevant, because if something is reasonably possible, eventually it'll probably happen. Hypotheticals are OK. As a programmer myself, I am constantly trying to think about what could hypothetically happen with various program inputs, etc. But there comes a point when you have to say this is way too unlikely to worry about. Which is fine if we're talking about crashing an OS, but I think Dan -- and almost surely John -- are coming from the perspective that abortion can be murder, at least in some cases, which changes the valence of the discussion and almost requires hypotheticals. The consequences of overlooking these possibilities become considerably more dire if you also believe there's a god that punishes murderers with eternal damnation, and particularly if you believe that a society complicit in abortion has blood on its collective hands. Heck, if we worried about an unethical doctor approving a diagnosis that doesn't apply, they could just do it with a *real* DX that states the woman's life is in danger. Yes, of course; that's a nice loophole in the legal definitions, and just another reason to *not* start splitting hairs over when or if abortion is acceptable. It makes more sense to develop a social milieu that implicitly assumes most people, most of the time, are behaving in ways that are ethically rational, a society that doesn't insist on enforcing the views of *some* people over others'. Of course that's probably impossible, for a number of reasons, but there seems to be a trend in the US toward its opposite: Laws, laws and more laws enforcing things that most people, if they think about it for a moment, would find unnecessary. Or should we get rid of the police and prisons because there is a non-zero chance that an unethical cop might plant evidence on an innocent person? There's a huge difference between being falsely imprisoned and being killed. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion and the Democratic Party Re: TheAmericanPoliticalLandscape Today
On May 18, 2005, at 10:45 PM, Robert Neil Diamond Sutra Seeberger wrote: It seems to me that a lot of Dan's concern is based in the extremes -- the fringes, the things which happen rarely if ever, but which (to him at the very least) seem to pose some serious ethical or moral questions. If so, then I would agree that it is interesting territory to explore, but I am pretty sure that Dan is wrong in his estimation of how such a situation would actually work. I respond to this in another email. Possibly. Possibly. But it doesn't hurt to air the ideas, I think. In this light, overlooking the very rare late-trimester abortion circumstance on the grounds that it's very rare is a little like ignoring the Earth-orbit crossing asteroids on the grounds that they've only caused three or maybe as many as five mass extinctions in 500 million years. The costs of failure may be far too great to be careless about precautions; amortization of risk is literally impossible when the very uncommon eventually does happen, as it eventually will, and when the results are potentially so devastating. Ack!! An abortion of the type Dan describes might kill a few people, while an asteroid could kill millions and harm many more. I think your example is misleading when used to justify Dans example for that reason. Actually it's not. Assuming there is a god that weighs the value both of societies and of individuals based on the societies they create, it's sensible to consider individual complicity in social trends. That is, if I know my neighbor is in the Klan, and I know there was a Klan rally last week, and I suspect he was there, and the result of the rally was a cross burning and a house arson, I am complicit in the crime of my neighbor by *not* reporting what I know, regardless of where the chain of plausibility leads. Even if he provably wasn't present at the burning, the possibility exists that he was involved, and I am ethically bound to report what I can say is true. On a larger scale, if there is a god and we regard the death of an innocent as a sin, and if it was within our power to stop that death but we chose not to prevent it, we are guilty of a sin of omission and are thus in danger of damnation. So if there is a question whether a late-term fetus has a soul and we do nothing as a society to explicitly protect that soul, we might be in danger -- as a society -- of damnation. An asteroid strike, as devastating as that would be, is nothing compared to eternal damnation. If that's where Dan is coming from, at the very least we owe it to him to consider his point of view. Atheists are ideally rationalists. Rationalism includes hearing *all* sides of a discussion without prejudice, or at least letting all have a hearing. So Dan doesn't necessarily have to provide a cite to have a legitimate concern that is worth discussing, I think. If what we're really talking about is a subset of ethics or morality, one of the best ways to do so is to talk about philosophical posers rather than history (at least to exclusivity), or so it seems to me. It seems more prudent to discuss what if? than what happened?. No, he does not have to. But I would like to know if the subject is purely hypothetical or if it is rooted in actual events. That does make a difference I'm sure you would agree. Again, no, not if it's a discussion of ethics, and particularly if we're trying to see how an ethical society might function under various conditions. Practical matters are another issue, or so it seems to me. If it never happens, then it is as valid as discussing invisible puce unicorns. If it does happen and happen often then it is a subject that deserves discussion that would lead to actions. The difference here is that an abortion based on thin emotional grounds is considerably more likely than the presence of unicorns of any shade or degree of perceptibility. We know, unlike unicorns, that abortions happen, after all. If the rest is a discussion of shade or visibility, we start getting into the realm of hair-splitting, methinks, while ignoring the fact of the unicorn. If it never happens then I would be against legislation regarding such a specific situation. If it does happen and happen frequently, I would be much more likely to support legislation to prevent the frivilous waste of human potential or at least not oppose it. (Pretty much depends on the frequency kenneth) I agree, REM ref's aside. But never is pretty absolute, and infinitely less likely than plausible, eh? Isn't there some place between never and plausible that can serve as a foundation for discussion? I hope that helps you understand where I am coming from. I think I know where you're coming from. I hope I'm helping expand on where I think Dan is coming from, and why I think it's something worthy of discussion, because to my mind it is. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress
Re: Abortion and the Democratic Party Re: TheAmericanPoliticalLandscape Today
- Original Message - From: Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2005 9:11 AM Subject: Re: Abortion and the Democratic Party Re: TheAmericanPoliticalLandscape Today On Thu, 19 May 2005 07:42:54 -0400, JDG wrote The Catholic Church has it that every sperm is sacred. This is a false statement. I am quite familiar with Catholic teaching, and I do not believe that you can find a single Church document supporting that position. Indeed, the above statement is borderline offensive, as sacred is a very important concept in our religion. I believe you will find it in the canon of Monty Python. Can't believe nobody pointed that out yet. I didn't say so the first time because I figured 15 other people would. G Wellits been done a few times and the result was the observation that John is sorta clueless with regards to the Churches once upon a time stance against masturbation. xponent Everybody Does It Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion and the Democratic Party Re: TheAmericanPoliticalLandscape Today
In a message dated 5/18/2005 10:12:02 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I can understand you saying that at conception we don't have a human, at 21 we do, and somewhere in between we draw a line. But, that line should be based on the being itself, not what _we've_ done. If we can change the humanness by changing the order of actions slightly, then the humanness, or lack thereof, is not innate. The line does shift because of technical (medical) advances. That is why this problem has become so vexing. Modern medicine has exposed the falicy of our intuitive notions of what it means to be human. (Analogy - our common sense perceptions of the world are completely overturned by relativity and quantum physics. Our brains evolved in a situation where these realities do not impede on our lives. So we can afford to accept these theories without worrying about their effects on our daily lives. But here the analogy breaks down because our intuitive notions about when someone becomes human constatntly runs into reatlity.(at birth in the past; modern science has shown us that la human is formed at inception. But that embryo lacks many -most- of the features that traditionally define human beings are absent) So, I wasn't arguing, at this point, against all abortionsjust abortions after vivacity of the fetus. Roughly speaking...that's third trimester abortions. I have no arguement with this unless the mother's health is at risk ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion and the Democratic Party Re: TheAmericanPoliticalLandscape Today
At 07:11 AM 5/19/2005 -0700, Nick wrote: The Catholic Church has it that every sperm is sacred. This is a false statement. I am quite familiar with Catholic teaching, and I do not believe that you can find a single Church document supporting that position. Indeed, the above statement is borderline offensive, as sacred is a very important concept in our religion. I believe you will find it in the canon of Monty Python. Can't believe nobody pointed that out yet. I didn't say so the first time because I figured 15 other people would. I am aware of where it is from. I am also pointing out that not only is it borderline offensive, but it is absolutely false. Unfortunately, even some Brin-L'ers have heard the dumb joke repeated so often that they have started believing it. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion and the Democratic Party Re: TheAmericanPoliticalLandscape Today
On 5/17/05, JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 08:46 PM 5/17/2005 -0500, Dan M. wrote: Let me ask a very simple question which bothers me a lot about the legality of third trimester abortions. If a woman finds a hospital and a physician that are agreeable, is it legal to do a dilation and extraction on a fetus that is normally developed, 8 lbs, and 3 days overdue? AFAIK, the answer is yes. Yes, such an abortion would be totally legal. I disagree here. I think that would be illegal under Roe v. Wade which is more sophisticated than you think. But of course you would not get any doctor and any hospital to commit such a murder. Am I defining abortion as murder? Killing viable infants unless a finding has been made that the women's life is endangered is murder, it is not abortion. And so just to be clear, the baby would be three days overdue, labor would be induced, and the skull of the baby would be punctured just before it emerges from the mother. This is legal in any case in which the woman claims that *not* doing this would endanger her mental health. You are wrong and this is another false argument. The decision could not be made on the mental health of the mother but actual endangerment of the mother. It would also have to be an affirmative decision that the baby is endangering her life and it has come down to one or another. JDG -- Gary Denton Easter Lemming Blogs http://elemming.blogspot.com http://elemming2.blogspot.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion and the Democratic Party Re: TheAmericanPoliticalLandscape Today
- Original Message - From: Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2005 2:17 PM Subject: Re: Abortion and the Democratic Party Re: TheAmericanPoliticalLandscape Today Something is clearly bothering you here, but unless you're willing to state what it is, I can't see how it can be addressed in a rational discussion. I've had an off-line conversation with someone who's on list and pro-choice. He has remarked on how clear my arguments were, but told me that he bet I'd not be able to get you or Gary to see them. May I suggest that I am arguing with an unspoken presupposition of yours and Gary's. Those are the hardest for us all to get around, because the supposition is done so quickly, it's not recognized. In engineering applications, those are the ones that cause pretty capable people to miss a problem for weeksand is why engineering groups are often helped by creative naivety that is to say someone who has the tools to attack a problem, but hasn't worked in that area. An example of this is assuming that X won't work because you've had bitter experiences with trying to get X to work 5 years ago. The reason for that has been addressed by new technology, so X is now a real solutionbut one that you dismiss instinctively due to your experience. (Not just you, of course, engineers/scientists I've worked with have talked about this negative part of experience). Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion and the Democratic Party Re: TheAmericanPoliticalLandscape Today
- Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2005 9:00 PM Subject: Re: Abortion and the Democratic Party Re: TheAmericanPoliticalLandscape Today In a message dated 5/18/2005 3:08:44 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It depends on whom is being threatened. If you believe that humanness in not innate, but society has a right to limit who is considered human, then that's a self consistent position. Is that your position? That is the wrong formulation. Humaness is innate in the sense that it apertains to any human fetus but it is also not present at inception. It develops progressivley over time. There is no threshold over which a fetus crosses to become human but clearlythere is a range of time over which it changes from something that is potentially human to something that is human If you reread my example, I think you see that I allowed for that. My comparison was between a baby that was born two months premature and a fetus that is 3 days past due. The fetus 3 days past due is, typically, better developed than the baby born two months premature. I can understand you saying that at conception we don't have a human, at 21 we do, and somewhere in between we draw a line. But, that line should be based on the being itself, not what _we've_ done. If we can change the humanness by changing the order of actions slightly, then the humanness, or lack thereof, is not innate. So, I wasn't arguing, at this point, against all abortionsjust abortions after vivacity of the fetus. Roughly speaking...that's third trimester abortions. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion and the Democratic Party Re: TheAmericanPoliticalLandscape Today
Dan Minette wrote: What's trumped up or faked? You think that a woman wanting a late term abortion won't be extremely anxious? DSM4 is _the_ diagnostic tool for mental health. This is _literally_ by the book...her mental health is in danger if she is suffering anxiety disorder because she is pregnant. Dan, there is a very big difference between anxiety and suffering from an anxiety disorder. A disorder is a long term condition, not something that will pass in a short time when a situation changes. A woman may suffer anxiety because of a pregnancy. But if she has a disorder, the anxiety will not be relieved by an abortion or by having a child, but more likely by medication. (Per my ex-wifes pregnancy, a person suffering from a DSM listed disorder, SSRI drugs can be used during pregnancy.) I would agree that there is a non-zero chance of something like this occuring, but there is also a greater probability that this would be a serious violation of ethics for the health professional involved. Medicating a patient is a much more likely first step in such a diagnosis rather than the riskier proposition of a medical procedure. xponent More Noise Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion and the Democratic Party Re: TheAmericanPoliticalLandscape Today
Warren Ockrassa wrote: On May 18, 2005, at 9:26 PM, Robert Seeberger wrote: Got an explicit example of this occuring exactly as you lay it out, or are you simply engaging in supposition? To be fair, I think we should talk about the hypotheticals, even the ones that seem (to some of us at least) only remotely feasible or not particularly relevant, because if something is reasonably possible, eventually it'll probably happen. It seems to me that a lot of Dan's concern is based in the extremes -- the fringes, the things which happen rarely if ever, but which (to him at the very least) seem to pose some serious ethical or moral questions. If so, then I would agree that it is interesting territory to explore, but I am pretty sure that Dan is wrong in his estimation of how such a situation would actually work. I respond to this in another email. That an eighth-month abortion because of malaise has not yet (TTBOMK) happened doesn't necessarily mean it won't, and if (as I suspect is the case here) one feels an infant's soul is in peril or something like murder might be perpetrated, discussion of hypotheticals becomes crucial, if for no other reason than respect for the sensibilities of those involved in the discussion. I understand the kind of argument Dan is making. I want to know if there is some record of such an occurance actually happening. It is a simple and honest question, but not some debate ploy. Dan's example goes against my personal experience ( which is a bit tangetial to the subject, but still applicable AFAICT) In this light, overlooking the very rare late-trimester abortion circumstance on the grounds that it's very rare is a little like ignoring the Earth-orbit crossing asteroids on the grounds that they've only caused three or maybe as many as five mass extinctions in 500 million years. The costs of failure may be far too great to be careless about precautions; amortization of risk is literally impossible when the very uncommon eventually does happen, as it eventually will, and when the results are potentially so devastating. Ack!! An abortion of the type Dan describes might kill a few people, while an asteroid could kill millions and harm many more. I think your example is misleading when used to justify Dans example for that reason. So Dan doesn't necessarily have to provide a cite to have a legitimate concern that is worth discussing, I think. If what we're really talking about is a subset of ethics or morality, one of the best ways to do so is to talk about philosophical posers rather than history (at least to exclusivity), or so it seems to me. It seems more prudent to discuss what if? than what happened?. No, he does not have to. But I would like to know if the subject is purely hypothetical or if it is rooted in actual events. That does make a difference I'm sure you would agree. If it never happens, then it is as valid as discussing invisible puce unicorns. If it does happen and happen often then it is a subject that deserves discussion that would lead to actions. If it never happens then I would be against legislation regarding such a specific situation. If it does happen and happen frequently, I would be much more likely to support legislation to prevent the frivilous waste of human potential or at least not oppose it. (Pretty much depends on the frequency kenneth) I hope that helps you understand where I am coming from. xponent I Am I Said Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion and the Democratic Party Re: TheAmericanPoliticalLandscape Today
- Original Message - From: Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 8:46 PM Subject: Re: Abortion and the Democratic Party Re: TheAmericanPoliticalLandscape Today births (as it was in the '80s in the US)? I'm also wondering if such a ^^^ delete the next lines were the replacement thought after I got an understanding of the publication. I googled for that term and got this self-definition: and so on Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion and the Democratic Party Re: TheAmericanPoliticalLandscape Today
At 08:46 PM 5/17/2005 -0500, Dan M. wrote: Let me ask a very simple question which bothers me a lot about the legality of third trimester abortions. If a woman finds a hospital and a physician that are agreeable, is it legal to do a dilation and extraction on a fetus that is normally developed, 8 lbs, and 3 days overdue? AFAIK, the answer is yes. Yes, such an abortion would be totally legal. And so just to be clear, the baby would be three days overdue, labor would be induced, and the skull of the baby would be punctured just before it emerges from the mother. This is legal in any case in which the woman claims that *not* doing this would endanger her mental health. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion and the Democratic Party Re: TheAmericanPoliticalLandscape Today
JDG wrote: At 08:46 PM 5/17/2005 -0500, Dan M. wrote: Let me ask a very simple question which bothers me a lot about the legality of third trimester abortions. If a woman finds a hospital and a physician that are agreeable, is it legal to do a dilation and extraction on a fetus that is normally developed, 8 lbs, and 3 days overdue? AFAIK, the answer is yes. Yes, such an abortion would be totally legal. And so just to be clear, the baby would be three days overdue, labor would be induced, and the skull of the baby would be punctured just before it emerges from the mother. This is legal in any case in which the woman claims that *not* doing this would endanger her mental health. And you want such a person to raise a child? (I'm looking at the kind of person who would use mental health as an /excuse/ to evade the responsibility of parenthood) Perhaps you are thinking the child should be spared and the mother should be aborted? xponent Set Sarcasm For Zero Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
