This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
There is no pleasing the pro-lifers, is there?
In this case, the story seems obviously that rather than simply blanket-allowing abortions until birth (like AK, CO, MD, MA, MI, MN, NJ, NM, OR, VT do), the Dutch decided that a late-term abortion was basically the same as infanticide and should follow the same MAID standards -- e.g., is it in the patient's best interests to die (as opposed to merely being in his legal guardians interests).
The Dutch have generally legalized MAID for all age brackets, and the board responsible for Late-Term till age 12 exists because here the patients can not independently request MAID, and are likely subject to stricter standards. Other committees exist for older people! If a competent adult tells you that they want to die, that is tremendous evidence in favor of letting them die. With a three-year-old, the evidence is much weaker, and their legal guardians might be biased by considerations besides the best interests of the child.
As understandable from @ToaKraka's extensive quotes, this was not a case of "for economic or social reasons, parents kinda wished they had aborted their kid, and the local law did not give a fuck about children so they allowed them to have their kid killed". To reiterate his quote:
If someone kept a dog under these conditions instead of putting it down, I would argue that it was animal cruelty. For someone who is not a speciecist, there is no good reason to treat humans worse than non-human animals. Instead, it is the Christians with their sacredness of human life doctrine who argue for prolonging the suffering as much as modern medicine will allow, which becomes more problematic as modern medicine progresses.
More options
Context Copy link