Scivillage.com Casual Discussion Science Forum

(Oct 25, 2016 11:45 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]Your equivocation of "life" as "experience" is a red herring.

I never said experience.  I said brain waves, as in brain birth.  Most agree that higher brain birth begins approximately 24-36 weeks. 

(Oct 26, 2016 02:02 AM)Secular Sanity Wrote: [ -> ]

(Oct 25, 2016 11:45 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]Your equivocation of "life" as "experience" is a red herring.

I never said experience.  I said brain waves, as in brain birth.  Most agree that higher brain birth begins approximately 24-36 weeks. 

Day 40: Brain waves can be detected and recorded. - http://www.pregnancy.org/article/overvie...evelopment

So if you're drawing the line at cognition, you are equivocating "life" as "experience". Try again.

(Oct 26, 2016 04:24 AM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]

Day 40: Brain waves can be detected and recorded. - http://www.pregnancy.org/article/overvie...evelopment

So if you're drawing the line at cognition, you are equivocating "life" as "experience". Try again.

Just as there are two types of brain death - whole brain death (which refers to the irreversible cessation of function of both the brain stem and higher parts of the brain) and higher brain death (destruction of the cerebral hemispheres alone, with possible retention of brain stem function), there are two types of brain birth (based on their reversal) - brain stem birth at the first appearance of brain waves in lower brain (brain stem) at 6–8 weeks of gestation, and higher brain birth, at the first appearance of brain waves in higher brain (cerebral cortex) at 22–24 weeks of gestation.—Wikipedia

When women are compelled to carry and bear children, they are subjected to 'involuntary servitude' in violation of the Thirteenth Amendment….[E]ven if the woman has stipulated to have consented to the risk of pregnancy, that does not permit the state to force her to remain pregnant.—Wikipedia

I don’t think that a defense based on the Thirteenth Amendment is frivolous.

"The objection gathers whatever force it has by focusing on the experience of women who want to be mothers. But the Thirteenth Amendment doesn't apply to them.  The servitude it is concerned with is involuntary. The distinction between wanted and unwanted pregnancy is like the difference between wanted and unwanted sex.

Women differ from men in that the services they are capable of performing include the production of human beings. The Thirteenth Amendment, however, draws no distinction between the powers of a man's back and arms and those of a woman's uterus. Both, according to the amendment, belong to the individual who possesses them and cannot be made subject to the command or benefit of another. Indeed, the recent advent of "surrogate motherhood" has shown that women's reproductive powers are as capable as any other of being transacted for in the marketplace, a marketplace that the Thirteenth Amendment establishes as "a system of completely free and voluntary labor throughout the United States."

Forced Labor, Revisited: The Thirteenth Amendment and Abortion

So just avoid the issue of killing a human life altogether. Typical.

How can you think that abortion is equivocal to murder when considering neural fetal development?

You’ve mentioned the value of potential future humans before.  Does that include contraception and the decision to not have children?

(Oct 27, 2016 05:41 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: [ -> ]How can you think that abortion is equivocal to murder when considering neural fetal development?

Where did I say "murder"? I've actually said that as long as abortion is legal, it can't be murder (the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another). I'm talking about science. Taxonomy classifies a living organism with individually distinct human DNA as human life.

Kill - The act of causing the death of a living organism

You cannot be intellectually honest and try to claim that abortion does not kill a human life (in rigorously scientific terms). But by neural development are you claiming that any life not as complex as a human infant is disposable? That would include animals, and again make your preaching in this thread hypocritical.

Quote:You’ve mentioned the value of potential future humans before. Does that include contraception and the decision to not have children?

Since neither kills a human life, no.

(Oct 27, 2016 09:20 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]You cannot be intellectually honest and try to claim that abortion does not kill a human life (in rigorously scientific terms). But by neural development are you claiming that any life not as complex as a human infant is disposable? That would include animals, and again make your preaching in this thread hypocritical.

Nope. Nice try, though.

It's a potential person. It's not about when life begins. The question is when does it become a person. There is no scientific consensus on when it actually becomes a person. That's a religious and philosophical question.

(Oct 27, 2016 11:16 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: [ -> ]

(Oct 27, 2016 09:20 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]You cannot be intellectually honest and try to claim that abortion does not kill a human life (in rigorously scientific terms). But by neural development are you claiming that any life not as complex as a human infant is disposable? That would include animals, and again make your preaching in this thread hypocritical.

Nope.  Nice try, though.

It's a potential person.  It's not about when life begins.  The question is when does it become a person.  There is no scientific consensus on when it actually becomes a person.  That's a religious and philosophical question.

And you've just moved the goalposts, since I've only been arguing about life. Or...in admitting you are arguing personhood, you are admitting to equivocating "life" with "experience" (any qualia used to define personhood is an experience). Take your pick.

Either way, you are a hypocrite. If personhood grants full legal protection, why eat even humanely raised meat? If animals don't have personhood, why does it matter? After all, that's exactly the case you're making for abortion. If it isn't a person, you are free to kill it. And if animals have more personhood than a fetus, why is it okay to kill them?

Find a consistent morality already.

There’s a huge difference between killing and torturing an animal that already exists vs. a potential human life requiring a huge physiological investment.  Human pregnancy is far from the romantic idea that you’ve attached to it.  Not only is the fetus capable of manipulating the mother’s hormones, it also has unrestricted access to her blood supply.  Even with all of our medical advances, over 600 women die each year in the U.S. as a result of pregnancy or delivery complications. 

There may be a correlation between our thirst for knowledge and our thirst for blood.  The unrestricted access to the mother’s blood supply may have contributed to our big brain volume.  Perhaps, our ancestors weren’t too far off with their claim that Eve’s desire for knowledge would multiply her sorrow through conception.

You said that you wanted to protect BIID suffers from any future regret.  They don’t have regret.  Most have said that their only regret was that it didn’t happen sooner.  It is illegal and many take matters into their own hands.  Is that what you want women do to, huh, Syne?  Abortion was illegal.  We’ve been down that back alley.

Who suffers from the loss of a potential life?  What loss, the chance for survival?  No claim can be made unless there is a soul waiting to be born.  There are none.

How can you continue to mock my emotions when your so-called ethics purports to promote love?  Let’s not forget that we ride on nature’s lawless back.  It wants nothing.  It has no goals or purposes.  Evolution is built on accidents and errors.  If you think you’re a part of a god, and he is within and without, naturally you’re going to feel entitled to exploit your environment.  You’ll see everyone else as mindless and not entitled to ethical consideration.  There is nothing to worship!  We’ve created good and evil and don’t you forget that. They’re our ideas, our concepts.  Our desire for the knowledge of good and evil is our thirst for power.  Your morality sleeps with a dragon.

Women deserve more ethical consideration than a potential life...and that's that!

(Oct 28, 2016 05:01 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: [ -> ]There’s a huge difference between killing and torturing an animal that already exists vs. a potential human life requiring a huge physiological investment.  Human pregnancy is far from the romantic idea that you’ve attached to it.  Not only is the fetus capable of manipulating the mother’s hormones, it also has unrestricted access to her blood supply.  Even with all of our medical advances, over 600 women die each year in the U.S. as a result of pregnancy or delivery complications. 

The life isn't potential. I've already told you that taxonomy classifies a fetus as human life. If you're going to continue to talk about personhood, at least have the intellectual honesty to say so...instead of continuing to equivocate so you can pretend a life isn't a life. I know all about things like gestational diabetes, Rh incompatibility, and other physiological strains on the mother. But all this is an insignificant red herring. 600 is a mere 0.015% of the nearly 4 million births a year in the US...and cannot possibly, on its own, justify the ~700,000 abortions a year. That's 1,167 abortions to avoid each possible maternal death. That is not ethically justifiable, especially when a vast majority of those deaths are mothers who chose to go through with the pregnancy.

And no one is unwilling to discuss exceptions for the life of the mother...so this is just a tired red herring...and a complete dodge of the ethical considerations involved.

Quote:You said that you wanted to protect BIID suffers from any future regret.  They don’t have regret.  Most have said that their only regret was that it didn’t happen sooner.  It is illegal and many take matters into their own hands.  Is that what you want women do to, huh, Syne?  Abortion was illegal.  We’ve been down that back alley.

Many women who've aborted their child latter regret the choice. The only study I've seen that refutes that has flawed methodology (62.5% of women refused to participate in the study, 15% dropped out at or before the first interview, with only a 31.9% participation rate). IOW, 31% of women didn't regret it.

So you're saying that self-mutilation should be legal because they don't report regret and will find another way?

I've already told you that I want women to be held as accountable as men (you know, egalitarian equality). Or do you argue that women aren't as good/competent/responsible as men?

Quote:Who suffers from the loss of a potential life?  What loss, the chance for survival?  No claim can be made unless there is a soul waiting to be born.  There are none.

Potential life or potential personhood? The life is actual...the personhood potential. What loss would it be to the world if someone like Lincoln or MLK weren't born? The loss of one of these would be inestimable. You don't even have to posit a soul to see that. If you believe that the person is an effect of genetics and specific environment, then each abortion is the loss of a specific, unique combination with unpredictable potential to shape the world and the lives of others.

IOW, this is another completely empty argument. It is equivalent to the personhood arguments in support of slavery. They're not "people", so what is lost by denying them rights? They're not likely to do anything important anyway, right?

Quote:How can you continue to mock my emotions when your so-called ethics purports to promote love?  Let’s not forget that we ride on nature’s lawless back.  It wants nothing.  It has no goals or purposes.  Evolution is built on accidents and errors.  If you think you’re a part of a god, and he is within and without, naturally you’re going to feel entitled to exploit your environment.  You’ll see everyone else as mindless and not entitled to ethical consideration.  There is nothing to worship!  We’ve created good and evil and don’t you forget that. They’re our ideas, our concepts.  Our desire for the knowledge of good and evil is our thirst for power.  Your morality sleeps with a dragon.

Women deserve more ethical consideration than a potential life...and that's that!

Only situational ethics hold love to be a goal. But just like ethics is not equivalent to compassion or altruism, ethics is no more equivalent to love or emotion. Nature has laws, derived from consistency and regularity, which are the entire basis for science. But you're right, nature itself has no goals or purposes...so why are you trying to shoehorn your emotional bias into it?

You are the one who is claiming something is "mindless and not entitled to ethical consideration" (fetus before higher brain function), while I fully appreciate all competing interests when evaluating ethics. Again, you just keep proving yourself a hypocrite.

LOL! Who said there was something to worship? Silly straw man, in a weak attempt to poison the well.

Unlike you, apparently, I do give women EQUAL ethical consideration, and actually have a consistent morality. Just look at how you flail wildly instead of actually supporting your ethical views. If personhood grants full legal protection, why eat even humanely raised meat? If animals don't have personhood, why does it matter? After all, that's exactly the case you're making for abortion. If it isn't a person, you are free to kill it. And if animals have more personhood than a fetus, why is it okay to kill them? Apparently you can't manage to reconcile this glaring contradiction.

Luckily you don't really seem to care...because vague emotional justifications.