Abortion

[mumblethrax]

The great success of the anti-abortion rights movement is in conflating disparate senses of the word human. That a zygote is both human (in the sense of species) and alive is uncontroversial; it's not at all clear why this matters.

This is fundamentally a moral question. To seek answers in biology is foolish. You might as well conduct a neurological inquiry into what 1 + 1 is. Trying to explain away moral questions in terms of biology is an example of what Dennett calls greedy reductionism.

 

[Luke T.]

Hold on, hold on. If it's a matter of faith for him, he doesn't have to explain. What he then has to explain is why he has the right to impose his faith on others. Different problem.

Did they have the necessary science to determine that slaves were human back then? Or was it more of a philosophical/religious belief?

Did abolitionists claim scientific evidence to support freeing the slaves?

Did they have the right to impose their beliefs on others?

If so, why?

 

[toddjh]

If you can comprehend that, then you can comprehend that to some people, a one day old clump of cells is human and feel it is immoral to kill it.

This is where you lose me. Sure, I can understand that, for those who think a one-day-old clump of cells is a person, abortion would be akin to murder.

What I don't understand is how anyone could believe a one-day-old clump of cells is a person without invoking a soul. What rational basis is there for such a claim?

It sounds reasonable to say you're undecided, but when it comes to questions of morality and legality, we're obligated to provide reasons for positions which might be used to restrict the freedom of others.

 

[Luke T.]

And, yes, significant numbers (the word corrected to obey the standard you hold for me and not for yourself) of people in the anti-abortion movement have as their main agenda controlling the behavior of women.

Is a seat belt advocate's "main agenda" controlling the behavior of drivers, or to save lives?

 

[Luke T.]

This is where you lose me. Sure, I can understand that, for those who think a one-day-old clump of cells is a person, abortion would be akin to murder.

What I don't understand is how anyone could believe a one-day-old clump of cells is a person without invoking a soul. What rational basis is there for such a claim?

It could be based on a soul.

Aren't there laws against defiling the dead, though? Nobody thinks a dead person has a soul, and yet we wouldn't toss them in the ground without ceremony in the backyard like a dog's corpse.

Well, maybe some folks would. My best friend told me "wrap me up in tin foil and throw me out with the garbage."

It sounds reasonable to say you're undecided, but when it comes to questions of morality and legality, we're obligated to provide reasons for positions which might be used to restrict the freedom of others.

That is correct, which is why you don't hear me advocating making first term abortions illegal.

My temper was pretty spiked this morning over the "slavery" b.s., and I was sorely tempted, though.

 

[jj]

Did they have the necessary science to determine that slaves were human back then? Or was it more of a philosophical/religious belief?

Indeed, that was part of the problem.

Did abolitionists claim scientific evidence to support freeing the slaves?

Actually, some made that argument, although the modern scientific method was not in place, so it wasn't "scientific" evidence by modern standards.

Did they have the right to impose their beliefs on others?

Did who have what right?

Science is not a belief system.

A belief comes from a faith perspective, rather than from a "best possible conclusion given the known facts" perspective.

Faith does not belong in law in the USA, although I concede that some people wish to change that radically as we speak.

If so, why?

Why what? I think your last question was flawed, and thus this one is meaningless.

 

[chris epic]

I am not trying to side-step your support of objective scientific evidence. That is one of the arguments for determining when a fetus is human that I consider to be very reasonable. I just want it to be understood that there are other reasonable arguments which disagree with that method of determination.

All right, I forgive you- but just this once

 

[chris epic]

Human = Human DNA
person = Human DNA + life + self-awareness

Is that correct? Now what?

In the US, persons have rights, humans don't- essentially

 

[chris epic]

An embryo does NOT contain all the information required to become human. That's the point.

That's false

 

[chris epic]

You mix the two?

Blegh.

I knew someone was going to say something about that...I'm going to edit that now

 

[chris epic]

Wouldn't this whole issue be easy to deal with if we just make a law that it's illegal for a woman to have an abortion unless she is in danger?

Charlie (in danger of having an unwanted birth) Monoxide

We do, its called Roe v Wade 1973

 

[gnome]

A proposal:

Since reducing abortions by reducing the demand is more effective than fighting for legislation outlawing it...

Instead of arguing about whether it should be legal and when, why not agree on an arbitrary deadline that is early in the pregnancy, but yet offers a reasonable amount of time to choose abortion, and then both sides give up the fighting and combine forces to rally for increased education about unwanted pregnancy, birth control, and abortion alternatives? I think we would see the number of abortions decline significantly--a strategy more effective at stopping abortions than all of the fighting over the law that has been done so far.

With fighting over abortion laws off the table, maybe our leaders will have to come up with some other things instead of using this point to play us off against each other.

 

[jj]

That's false

Really, you have evidence to counter the discussion above?

Let's see it.

 

[chris epic]

A proposal:
why not agree on an arbitrary deadline that is early in the pregnancy, but yet offers a reasonable amount of time to choose abortion,

That would be nice, since the constitution allows for jurisprudence- but here's why its impracticle and impossible according to the Supreme Court

"The usual rule in federal cases is that an actual controversy must exist at stages of appellate...review... But when, as here, pregnancy is a significant fact in the litigation, the... gestation period is so short that the pregnancy will come to term before the usual appellate process is complete. If that termination makes a case moot...appellate review will be effectively denied. Our law should not be that rigid....Pregnancy provides a classic justification for a conclusion of nonmootness. It could truly be "capable of repetition, yet evading review." (Roe, 410 U.S., at 125.)

 

[chris epic]

Really, you have evidence to counter the discussion above?

Let's see it.

http://books.google.com/books?id=Ip...as+all+the+information+needed+to+become+human

hope you have glasses

People that are all about stem cell research could really contribute to this arguement.

 

[jj]

http://books.google.com/books?id=Ip...as+all+the+information+needed+to+become+human

hope you have glasses

Irrelevant.

The genome has all the information necessary, WITH THE HELP OF THE MOTHER'S BODY, to engage in proper development, etc, and IF THE BABY IS FEMALE, how to properly aid the development of the next generation.

It can not aid in its own development, that has to come from mom. Mom has the genes to help the NEXT generation, not her own fetal development. Do you see the difference?

This isn't speculation. Go a bit deeper than a puff-piece on stem cells next time.

(again, I don't mean simple nutrition, or even nutrition and hormones, there is a whole class of chemicals that mediate development that affect specific differentiations and so on. things like "how does the fetus know this is the end of the finger" vs. "this is part of the brain", etc.)

 

[jj]

People that are all about stem cell research could really contribute to this arguement.

Very good idea. Ask them how it is that the stem cell figures out what to turn into.

 

[chris epic]

Irrelevant.

The genome has all the information necessary, WITH THE HELP OF THE MOTHER'S BODY, to engage in proper development, etc, and IF THE BABY IS FEMALE, how to properly aid the development of the next generation.

It can not aid in its own development, that has to come from mom. Mom has the genes to help the NEXT generation, not her own fetal development. Do you see the difference?

This isn't speculation. Go a bit deeper than a puff-piece on stem cells next time.

(again, I don't mean simple nutrition, or even nutrition and hormones, there is a whole class of chemicals that mediate development that affect specific differentiations and so on. things like "how does the fetus know this is the end of the finger" vs. "this is part of the brain", etc.)

"The genome has all the information necessary" I thought so.... anyway...thank you for revising your claim, now we agree on that one.

People seem to look past the fact that even the term "viability" is a penumbra. Viability, as I defined before, quoting from the Supreme Courts, is when a child can live on its own or with artificial life support. BUt that's rediculous because how does a child, living on natural life support (inside the mothers womb) make it any less viable than a child living on artificial life support.

 

[Luke T.]

Indeed, that was part of the problem.

Actually, some made that argument, although the modern scientific method was not in place, so it wasn't "scientific" evidence by modern standards.

So on what basis did abolitionists base their belief that slaves should be free?

Did who have what right?

Did abolitionists have the right to impose their beliefs on others?

If so, why?

Faith does not belong in law in the USA, although I concede that some people wish to change that radically as we speak.

Is the 13th amendment based on science?

 

[gnome]

That would be nice, since the constitution allows for jurisprudence- but here's why its impracticle and impossible according to the Supreme Court

"The usual rule in federal cases is that an actual controversy must exist at stages of appellate...review... But when, as here, pregnancy is a significant fact in the litigation, the... gestation period is so short that the pregnancy will come to term before the usual appellate process is complete. If that termination makes a case moot...appellate review will be effectively denied. Our law should not be that rigid....Pregnancy provides a classic justification for a conclusion of nonmootness. It could truly be "capable of repetition, yet evading review." (Roe, 410 U.S., at 125.)

This seems to say that the question of legality can continue to be litigated on a case that has become moot. Not really inhibiting what I'm proposing--which is that activists make the choice to let go of the legal argument, and get to work actually preventing abortions. If done correctly, they can count on a lot of support from their former opponents.