SCOTUS - Oral Argument on Abortion Rights Case

[smac97]

6 hours ago, Duncan said:

Quote

I didn't say "when I see this sister i'll be more than happy to tell her her experience doesn't count for anything."  You did.  You were apparently imputing that idea onto me.  That is a falsehood.  Please don't do that.

it's your "argument from the margins" bit

You are substantially distorting and misrepresenting my position.

An argument from the margins is not aptly characterized as saying that the issue at the margin "doesn't count for anything."

I suspect, based on your responses, that you don't understand what an argument from the margins is.  If you did, you would not be reduced to distortion and mischaracterization.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Duncan]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

You are substantially distorting and misrepresenting my position.

An argument from the margins is not aptly characterized as saying that the issue at the margin "doesn't count for anything."

I suspect, based on your responses, that you don't understand what an argument from the margins is.  If you did, you would not be reduced to distortion and mischaracterization.

Thanks,

-Smac

no, you're wrong! I know what it is and I find it sick you would find someone's traumatic experience as being in the "margins". Situations like this could happen more than we know, you are not a Dr. and neither am I so we don't know how often they have to deal with messed up situations that they would prefer not to deal with.

[BRMC]

56 minutes ago, Duncan said:

life isn't so black and white and it's not so cut and dried

I believe many aspects are more black and white than people act.  It's easier to justify actions if we pretend there is a gray area.  

[Duncan]

2 minutes ago, BRMC said:

I believe many aspects are more black and white than people act.  It's easier to justify actions if we pretend there is a gray area.  

I believe that's wrong.

I don't think anyone was pretending in that example I gave. It would be nice to have twins but life didn't give the parents that 

[bluebell]

27 minutes ago, smac97 said:

You are substantially distorting and misrepresenting my position.

An argument from the margins is not aptly characterized as saying that the issue at the margin "doesn't count for anything."

I suspect, based on your responses, that you don't understand what an argument from the margins is.  If you did, you would not be reduced to distortion and mischaracterization.

Thanks,

-Smac

If the margins exist, then the laws need to be able to deal with them, right?  In that way, it doesn't matter if they are in the margins or not.  They exist and so must be accounted for and figured into the final product.

I'm not sure I understand your point in bringing "argument in the margins" into a conversation that deals with an actual event that someone faced.  Maybe you could clarify?

Edit to add:  I tried looking the phrase up to see if I could figure out why you were using it the way you did, and the only thing that keeps coming up is a wiki article claiming that it's a term from the animal rights movement.  That was less than helpful. 

Edited December 2, 2021 by bluebell

[bluebell]

6 minutes ago, BRMC said:

I believe many aspects are more black and white than people act.  It's easier to justify actions if we pretend there is a gray area.  

I think that's probably correct.  I doubt our ability to recognize either correctly as often as we give ourselves credit for though. 

We know that God's ways are higher than our ways and that His thoughts are not our thoughts, and yet we all often feel very comfortable speaking for Him.  That's pretty irrational when you stop to think about it, but we aren't very good at being rational either.   

 

 

[BRMC]

24 minutes ago, Duncan said:

I believe that's wrong.

I don't think anyone was pretending in that example I gave. It would be nice to have twins but life didn't give the parents that 

Sure, but maybe life would have given them one child instead of none if they had been allowed to live.  

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Duncan said:

no, you're wrong! I know what it is and I find it sick you would find someone's traumatic experience as being in the "margins".

No, you don't know what it is.

The vast majority of abortions are elective.  There are some very few (in the "margins") that are contemplated because the pregnancy A) was by sexual assault, B) was by incest, or C) constitutes a substantial threat to the life of the mother.  This is not really within reasonable dispute.

These being characterized as "in the margins" is a function of their rarity, not their moral significance.  Nobody disputes the trauma or seriousness of these things.  Nobody.  To the contrary, these "in the margin" instances have long functioned as exceptions to the generalized rule (which is that abortions are overwhelmingly elective).

I get that you are emotionally involved in this, but you are materially misunderstood what I have been saying.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

If the margins exist, then the laws need to be able to deal with them, right?  In that way, it doesn't matter if they are in the margins or not.  They exist and so must be accounted for and figured into the final product.

I'm not sure I understand your point in bringing "argument in the margins" into a conversation that deals with an actual event that someone faced.  Maybe you could clarify?

Edit to add:  I tried looking the phrase up to see if I could figure out why you were using it the way you did, and the only thing that keeps coming up is a wiki article claiming that it's a term from the animal rights movement.  That was less than helpful. 

Reading Smac’s explanation just now, I understand far more clearly what an argument from the margins is and how it applies here. An argument from the margins is an attempt to use an extremely infrequent or rare instance or set of circumstances to rationalize a general or universal acceptance of the practice under most or all circumstances. Such an argument is transparently fallacious. 

Added later: I’d prefer to use a text rather than a video link, but the following YouTube video is the best I could find at the moment. The man in the video gives a good explanation of arguing from the margins that conforms to Smac’s explanation.
 

He even gives as one of his examples the use of medically necessary abortion to rationalize the legality of elective abortion. 
 

Another example he gives is using the axiomatic belief that children and madmen shouldn’t have access to guns to justify the universal banning of all guns. 
 

 

Edited December 2, 2021 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

13 hours ago, Duncan said:

She shared this within the last ten years? and so I am probably forgetting something and/or she didn't go into every detail

My guess is there was likely some graphic, deeply personal details she didn’t want to dwell on/share.  Even at a distance it is disturbing to think about a mother and a baby being poisoned by the decomposing twin.  How long the first twin was dead before discovery and removal would make a huge difference in the ability of the second to survive especially if they shared the placenta or amniotic sac and what was going on with the mom.  Their circulations may be connected in some ways, causing the second twin to be absorbing the toxins produced through decomposition (there is a reason we don’t eat rotten meat), including twin to twin transfusion.  Twins may have entangled umbilical cords which may add complications even when both are living. 
 

Quote

MC twins share a circulation with varying combinations of arterio-arterial (AA), arterio-venous (AV) and veno-venous (VV) anastomoses. Death of a MC twin may damage the co-twin by one of two mechanisms. The ’thromboplastin theory‘ proposes that the passage of thrombotic material from the dead to the surviving twin results in thromboses and subsequent neurological injury. The ’ischaemic theory‘ postulates that, immediately before it dies, the twin becomes profoundly hypotensive and partially exsanguinates its co-twin via placental anastomoses, resulting in a period of anaemia, hypotension and hypoperfusion for the twin that eventually survives. There is evidence for both theories, although the latter is probably the more likely explanation in the majority of cases. The neurological injuries may be seen from as early as six days to as late as six weeks after the fetal death. These changes include periventricular leucomalacia, multicystic encephalomalacia, porencephaly, hydrancephaly and microcephaly.

Quote

The majority of deaths in MCMA twins involve the death of both twins. Occasionally a single MCMA twin may survive the death of its co-twin. The rarity of this circumstance makes it difficult to offer specific advice, but it must be noted that the rate of neurological sequelae in these survivors is extremely high.

https://www.ogmagazine.org.au/14/1-14/fetal-death-twin/

Given the mom called the bishop out of deep, deep concern, my guess is she pushed the doctors to explore any possibility that could have a chance at the living baby’s survival.

Edited December 3, 2021 by Calm

[bluebell]

16 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Reading Smac’s explanation just now, I understand far more clearly what an argument from the margins is and how it applies here. An argument from the margins is an attempt to use an extremely infrequent or rare instance or set of circumstances to rationalize a general or universal acceptance of the practice under most or all circumstances. Such an argument is transparently fallacious. 

 

 

Yes, I did see that video when I was googling.

But as to the bold, do you believe that that's what Duncan was saying with his example?  Because if that's not what Duncan was saying, then Smac's comment would be irrelevant to Duncan's post, right?

 

[smac97]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

If the margins exist, then the laws need to be able to deal with them, right? 

Yes.  Hence we can have exceptions to an otherwise applicable rule.  The general rule is that I cannot take a gun and shoot another person.  There are exceptions to this, such as self-defense or defense of another from death or serious bodily harm.  These exceptions are "in the margins," that is, they are at the edges of the rule's applicability, as opposed the center/middle where the rule manifestly and axiomatically applies. 

Other exceptions may or may not catch on.  Justified use of deadly force in defense of property, for example, is a rarity.  See here:

Quote

In all states, you can use deadly force to defend yourself against death, serious bodily injury (which can include broken bones and perhaps even lost teeth), rape, or kidnapping, so long as (a) your fear is reasonable and (b) the danger is imminent (requirements that also apply to the doctrines I discuss below). For instance, you should be able to use deadly force against someone who is trying to burn down your home, since that threatens you with death or serious bodily harm. You should be able to do the same against someone who is trying to burn down your business, though with possible limitations involving the duty to retreat in the minority of states that recognize such a duty.

But in nearly all states, you can't generally use deadly force merely to defend your property. (Texas appears to be an exception, allowing use of deadly force when there's no other way to protect or recapture property even in situations involving simple theft or criminal mischief, though only at night,  Tex. Penal Code § 9.42; see, e.g., McFadden v. State (Tex. Ct. App. 2018).) That's where we get the conventional formulation that you can't use deadly force just to defend property.

This conventional formulation, though, omits an important limitation: In basically all states, you can use nondeadly force to defend your property—and if the thief or vandal responds by threatening you with death or great bodily harm, you can then protect yourself with deadly force. So in practice, you can use deadly force to protect property after all, if you're willing to use nondeadly force first and expose yourself to increased risk.

And so it goes.

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

In that way, it doesn't matter if they are in the margins or not.  They exist and so must be accounted for and figured into the final product.

Actually, whether they are "in the margins" matters a lot.  The use of deadly force is an "in the margins" kind of thing.  If you kill a person while outside of those margins, you will go to prison.

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

I'm not sure I understand your point in bringing "argument in the margins" into a conversation that deals with an actual event that someone faced.  Maybe you could clarify?

It's an argument from the margins.  

I can't say: "Because I am allowed to use deadly force in certain 'marginal' circumstances, I should be able to use deadly force in all circumstances."  Nope.  We put the use of deadline for "in the margins" because it's something that can only be justified under rare or severe circumstances.

Similarly, I don't think we can say "Because an abortion may be morally acceptable in a 'marginal' circumstance (such as where the life of the mother is in danger), it is therefore morally acceptable in all circumstances" (such as gender-specific and other forms of "elective" abortion).

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

Edit to add:  I tried looking the phrase up to see if I could figure out why you were using it the way you did, and the only thing that keeps coming up is a wiki article claiming that it's a term from the animal rights movement.  That was less than helpful. 

Dunno.  I've heard in a lot in legal contexts.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited December 2, 2021 by smac97

[bluebell]

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 

Similarly, I don't think we can say "Because an abortion may be morally acceptable in a 'marginal' circumstance (such as where the life of the mother is in danger), it is therefore morally acceptable in all circumstances" (such as gender-specific and other forms of "elective" abortion).

 

-Smac

Do you think that's what Duncan was trying to say?

[Scott Lloyd]

15 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Yes, I did see that video when I was googling.

But as to the bold, do you believe that that's what Duncan was saying with his example?  Because if that's not what Duncan was saying, then Smac's comment would be irrelevant to Duncan's post, right?

 

I’ll let Smac deal with that question since it was he who applied the expression. I only responded because it was apparent to me that neither he nor you were grasping what arguing from the margins is or how it applies here (and I’ll admit that Smac’s follow-up explanation brought much greater clarity to it for me). 

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I’ll let Smac deal with that question since it was he who applied the expression. I only responded because it was apparent to me that neither he nor you were grasping what arguing from the margins is or how it applies here (and I’ll admit that Smac’s follow-up explanation brought much greater clarity to it for me). 

Then you have failed to grasp what I was saying.  Sorry if I was confusing.

What I wanted to know was how smac's use of the phrase was relevant to Duncan's post.  That's what I didn't understand.  I've heard the phrase before and knew it's general meaning (though discovering it came from animal-rights philosophy was something new), but the general meaning didn't make sense to me, given what Duncan actually posted.  So I thought maybe Smac used it in a different way.

[smac97]

12 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Quote

Similarly, I don't think we can say "Because an abortion may be morally acceptable in a 'marginal' circumstance (such as where the life of the mother is in danger), it is therefore morally acceptable in all circumstances" (such as gender-specific and other forms of "elective" abortion).

Do you think that's what Duncan was trying to say?

Apparently.  He said:

Quote

I'll give you a real situation. A Mom carrying twins and things were fine up until the day of delivery. Well, one of the twins died and as we know bodies start to decompose within a short while and when that happens the toxins can afflict the other baby and the mother. In this case that was happening and the mother actually called her bishop and she thought she would be exed from the church because they had to terminate the other baby or all could die. The Bishop told her of all things you are worrying about right now being excommunicated shouldn't be one of them and it's sad that someone would think of church discipline when you are in the swirl of emotions and everything but anyways, both babies died and the mother lived. Life isn't black or white and if you make it illegal to get a late term abortion this poor woman could face a jail penalty for something out of her control, I think that's morally wrong.

He seems to be using a "in the margins" justification for an abortion (the life of the mother is threatened, one that I acknowledge could be a valid exception to the rule) as justification for abortion for any reason, or no reason at all ("life isn't black or white...").

He then followed up with a rank appeal to emotion ("when I see this sister i'll be more than happy to tell her her experience doesn't count for anything...").

Frankly, I'm not sure what he's saying.  I'll leave it to him to clarify.

I think we should have a general rule outlawing elective abortion due to this being a violation of the child's personhood and right to life.  I think there should be limited exceptions to this rule to account for "in the margin" circumstances.

Duncan seems to want the exceptions to swallow the rule.  Because we allow abortion in some circumstances, we should allow it in all circumstances.  I just can't get on board with that.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited December 2, 2021 by smac97

[bluebell]

Just now, smac97 said:

Yes.  He said:

He seems to be using a "in the margins" justification for an abortion (the life of the mother is threatened, one that I acknowledge could be a valid exception to the rule) as justification for abortion for any reason, or no reason at all ("life isn't black or white...").

He then followed up with a rank appeal to emotion ("when I see this sister i'll be more than happy to tell her her experience doesn't count for anything...").

Frankly, I'm not sure what he's saying.  I'll leave it to him to clarify.

I think we should have a general rule outlawing elective abortion due to this being a violation of the child's personhood and right to life.  I think there should be limited exceptions to this rule to account for "in the margin" circumstances.

Duncan seems to want the exceptions to swallow the rule.  Because we allow abortion in some circumstances, we should allow it in all circumstances.  I just can't get on board with that.

Thanks,

-Smac

If you had been following along with his conversation, you would have understood that Duncan was responding specifically to BRMC's position that there should be no exceptions to save the life of the mother-that all abortions should be illegal all of the time.

Duncan was not arguing from the margins, he was giving an example of why abortions to save the life of the mother should remain legal.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

8 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Then you have failed to grasp what I was saying.  Sorry if I was confusing.

What I wanted to know was how smac's use of the phrase was relevant to Duncan's post.  That's what I didn't understand.  I've heard the phrase before and knew it's general meaning (though discovering it came from animal-rights philosophy was something new), but the general meaning didn't make sense to me, given what Duncan actually posted.  So I thought maybe Smac used it in a different way.

I think Smac’s perception of Duncan’s commentary is reasonable. If arguing from the margins is not what Duncan was doing, then he needs to clarify first, that he understands the meaning of the expression, and second, the distinction between arguing from the margins and what he was doing. 

[Scott Lloyd]

30 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Duncan was not arguing from the margins, he was giving an example of why abortions to save the life of the mother should remain legal.

Is that even at issue in this thread? I don’t know anyone who would dispute that. 
 

I thought the matter under discussion here was elective abortions, not medically necessary ones. 

Edited December 2, 2021 by Scott Lloyd

[BRMC]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Is that even at issue in this thread? I don’t know anyone who would dispute that. 
 

I thought the matter under discussion here was elective abortions, no medically necessary ones. 

I'm just wondering what would necessitate an abortion to save the life of the mother.  What pregnancy issue condemns the baby, assuming we are all using abortion to mean the primary purpose is the death of the baby.  

[smac97]

20 minutes ago, bluebell said:

If you had been following along with his conversation, you would have understood that Duncan was responding specifically to BRMC's position that there should be no exceptions to save the life of the mother-that all abortions should be illegal all of the time.

Duncan was not arguing from the margins, he was giving an example of why abortions to save the life of the mother should remain legal.

Ah.  I had not noticed that.  My apologies to Duncan.

Thanks,

-Smac

[BRMC]

25 minutes ago, bluebell said:

If you had been following along with his conversation, you would have understood that Duncan was responding specifically to BRMC's position that there should be no exceptions to save the life of the mother-that all abortions should be illegal all of the time.

Duncan was not arguing from the margins, he was giving an example of why abortions to save the life of the mother should remain legal.

 

That wasn't exactly my position.   My position was that I can't think of an example where the only means of saving the mother's life is the killing of the baby.  I asked for examples. 

[rongo]

3 minutes ago, BRMC said:

That wasn't exactly my position.   My position was that I can't think of an example where the only means of saving the mother's life is the killing of the baby.  I asked for examples. 

I gave you one --- a real life one that could have happened to us if she had been pregnant. You said she should have died in an attempt to possibly save the baby (which may have been fatally damaged by months of blood thinners), but sacrificing the mother's life. My wife is now equally unable to deliver a baby traditionally or by C-section.  

These are marginal (exceptional) cases, as has been discussed, but they do happen. 

[Scott Lloyd]

7 minutes ago, BRMC said:

That wasn't exactly my position.   My position was that I can't think of an example where the only means of saving the mother's life is the killing of the baby.  I asked for examples. 

FYI, I found this in a Google search:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/1644839

[BRMC]

3 minutes ago, rongo said:

I gave you one --- a real life one that could have happened to us if she had been pregnant. You said she should have died in an attempt to possibly save the baby (which may have been fatally damaged by months of blood thinners), but sacrificing the mother's life. My wife is now equally unable to deliver a baby traditionally or by C-section.  

These are marginal (exceptional) cases, as has been discussed, but they do happen. 

I don't believe you did.  I believe you gave an example that requires further consideration, but not a definitive example.