Can people who disagree on abortion stop attacking each other?

[YahuahSaves]

I'm going to take a look at this over the next day or two. I've quickly read thru a few of the arguments and found them lacking and out of date. The response to "myth 9" is blatantly false regarding the Morning After Pill, for example. Last week's headlines:

FDA changes Plan B label to clarify 'morning-after' pill doesn't cause abortion​

FDA changes Plan B label to clarify 'morning-after' pill doesn't cause abortion

WASHINGTON — The Food and Drug Administration announced Friday that it will overhaul packaging labels for the emergency contraceptive pill, Plan B, that women can take after having sex to prevent a pregnancy.

The federal agency said it will remove references on the contraception's packaging that claim, without scientific evidence, that the pill prevents a fertilized egg from implanting in the womb. The new labels are intended to further distinguish the emergency contraception — also known as the morning after pill — from abortion pills, which end a pregnancy after a fertilized egg has implanted in the lining of a woman's uterus.

The Morning After pill is simply a higher dose of the medication in birth control pills. To claim that it causes abortions is a lie. If the other arguments are equally false, then your position is a weak one.

So you'll accept no valid scientific evidence whatsoever while providing zero counter-evidence of your own? Figures. Emotional biases shouldn't determine laws.

Fact 9: The "morning-after pill," RU486, and the IUD can be abortifacient, if fertilization has taken place. Then they would act to prevent the implantation of an already existing human embryo-the blastocyst-which is an existing human being. If the developing human blastocyst is prevented from implanting into the uterus, then obviously the embryo dies. In effect, these chemical and mechanical methods of contraception have become methods of abortion as well. Quoting Moore:

"The administration of relatively large doses of estrogens ('morning-after pill') for several days, beginning shortly after unprotected sexual intercourse, usually does not prevent fertilization but often prevents implantation of the blastocyst. Diethylstilbestrol, given daily in high dosage for 5-6 days, may also accelerate passage of the dividing zygote along the uterine tube ... Normally, the endometrium progresses to the secretory phase of the menstrual cycle as the zygote forms, undergoes cleavage, and enters the uterus. The large amount of estrogen disturbs the normal balance between estrogen and progesterone that is necessary for preparation of the endometrium for implantation of the blastocyst. Postconception administration of hormones to prevent implantation of the blastocyst is sometimes used in cases of sexual assault or leakage of a condom, but this treatment is contraindicated for routine contraceptive use. The 'abortion pill' RU486 also destroys the conceptus by interrupting implantation because of interference with the hormonal environment of the implanting embryo. ... An intrauterine device (IUD) inserted into the uterus through the vagina and cervix usually interferes with implantation by causing a local inflammatory reaction. Some IUDs contain progesterone that is slowly released and interferes with the development of the endometrium so that implantation does not usually occur."36 (Emphasis added.)

And since the whole human blastocyst is the embryonic human being-not just the inner cell layer-the use of chemical abortifacients that act "only" on the outer trophoblast layer of the blastocyst, e.g., methotrexate,37 would be abortifacient as well.

 

[YahuahSaves]

If you think about it logically: Given that the vast majority of Heaven's inhabitants must be embryos that miscarried, she would have plenty of company.

Did you know that the terms "miscarriage" and "induced abortion" are interchangeable and don't differentiate between natural or forced termination of pregnancies? There are no statistics separating the 2....I wonder why that is.

 

[Friedrich Rubinstein]

I never said that. Please stop making false claims about what I said.

You seem to forget every 30 seconds what you said. Here a reminder:

Prior to birth, possessing higher level brain function and the ability to process sensory input, along with the potential to survive outside the womb.

So, is the life of a human who hasn't developed "higher level brain function" yet, valubale?
If no, it confirms what I said.
If yes, what makes the life of a human valuable?

 

[YahuahSaves]

That is not what objective is. Everyone can agree and it still be subjective.

"Morality is robustly grounded in facts.

The world is increasingly embracing diversity—religious, cultural, and political diversity, for example. Embracing diversity means being more tolerant to differences between individuals and groups, both large and small. This surge of tolerance is accompanied by an increasing moral relativism, especially among young people. Moral relativism is thought to naturally accompany tolerance."

"Relativism, even if part of the story of human morality, cannot be the whole story. There is a need, at least a felt need, for clear, definite moral lines that cannot be crossed without (near) universal, robust condemnation: racial and gender discrimination, sexual harassment, terrorism, and ignoring global warming are often thought of as objectively morally wrong. But this moral objectivity seems to be accepted (to the extent that it is) only for such big issues as those just listed. Relativism appears to hold sway over much of our daily conversations and judgments."

"There is, however, a clear path to a universal and powerful moral objectivity, the view that morality (or most of it, anyway) is just as objectively true as science and mathematics. The key ingredient is the notion of harm."

"We know harm exists, we just don’t know its boundaries. But given what we do know, it is objectively clear that where there is intentional harm, there is immorality."

From: Morality is objective

Our laws are not objective. Hence why we when we try people we use words like "Beyond reasonable doubt" and "Preponderance of evidence".

Exactly. And that's the core issue.

 

[Diamond72]

If you think about it logically: Given that the vast majority of Heaven's inhabitants must be embryos that miscarried, she would have plenty of company.

Oh I know she has LOTS of company. When she found out that I had visited her she told all her friends and they were all very excited for her. They want so much to be reunited with their parents. But they know that a lot of the parents are not going to make it there and they may never see them. Jesus makes it very clear that Heaven is all about the children. Matthew 19:4 "But Jesus said, “Let the little children come to Me, and do not hinder them! For the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.”

 

[Diamond72]

Can't use that as a valid argument against abortion though. besides, that passage is about rebellion against God, not necessarily the spilling of seed in and of itself.

We need to be very careful with birth control. Really there is no reason for a girl to get pregnant in this day and age. She can get an app for her phone or watch to tell her when she is fertile so she can learn to be careful. Even they have 15 and 20 smartwatches that will do that. So money is not an issue. If they do not mind giving their personal information over to an app like that.

 

[NxNW]

So you'll accept no valid scientific evidence whatsoever while providing zero counter-evidence of your own? Figures. Emotional biases shouldn't determine laws.

I posted a link to the FDA's actions based on scientific findings, and you're accusing me of emotional bias? And then you post a link to the same false information I'd already refuted?

 

[NxNW]

You seem to forget every 30 seconds what you said.

I haven't forgotten; it's a matter of reading comprehension.

Here a reminder:

So, is the life of a human who hasn't developed "higher level brain function" yet, valubale?

If we're talking about gestation, there is no such thing as a human being prior to that stage, which is the point I've repeatedly made.

You'd have to define 'valuable' as it applies to actual human beings. For example, are the hundreds of millions of miscarried zygotes and embryos valuable enough to warrant scientific research? If so, how much money and time have you donated?

If more-developed human beings are truly valuable, do you value them enough to have registered as a kidney donor? How often do you donate blood?

 

[comana]

We need to be very careful with birth control. Really there is no reason for a girl to get pregnant in this day and age. She can get an app for her phone or watch to tell her when she is fertile so she can learn to be careful. Even they have 15 and 20 smartwatches that will do that. So money is not an issue. If they do not mind giving their personal information over to an app like that.

It s only recommended to use that method if you don’t mind getting pregnant. And even then, the method can only work if her cycle is very regular. Aldo, requires her to abstain during the fertile period which coincides with peak desire. Good luck with long term success in that regard.

 

[Friedrich Rubinstein]

If we're talking about gestation, there is no such thing as a human being prior to that stage, which is the point I've repeatedly made.

Is this a human or not?

 

[Belk]

"Morality is robustly grounded in facts.

The world is increasingly embracing diversity—religious, cultural, and political diversity, for example. Embracing diversity means being more tolerant to differences between individuals and groups, both large and small. This surge of tolerance is accompanied by an increasing moral relativism, especially among young people. Moral relativism is thought to naturally accompany tolerance."

"Relativism, even if part of the story of human morality, cannot be the whole story. There is a need, at least a felt need, for clear, definite moral lines that cannot be crossed without (near) universal, robust condemnation: racial and gender discrimination, sexual harassment, terrorism, and ignoring global warming are often thought of as objectively morally wrong. But this moral objectivity seems to be accepted (to the extent that it is) only for such big issues as those just listed. Relativism appears to hold sway over much of our daily conversations and judgments."

"There is, however, a clear path to a universal and powerful moral objectivity, the view that morality (or most of it, anyway) is just as objectively true as science and mathematics. The key ingredient is the notion of harm."

"We know harm exists, we just don’t know its boundaries. But given what we do know, it is objectively clear that where there is intentional harm, there is immorality."

From: Morality is objective

You will note that he is stating that there is a path to objective morality, not that morality is currently objective. I also note that it is not based on "Everyone thinks it is" but on the notion of harm. Everyone believing something is subjective by definition. For it to be objective it would be need to be based on something external that can be measured. I would be curious to hear Dr. Dietrich explain how one quantifies different levels of harm.


https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/excellent-beauty/201712/morality-is-objective

Exactly. And that's the core issue.

I disagree. The harm in trying to make our laws objective would be catastrophic. Protections for anything not measurable would disappear. No more right to practice your religion for starters. Imagine a murder trial where you have to provide a video of the killing or it gets thrown out.

 

[Kylie]

I thought you understood objective reality? (Post #758). If the scientific evidence is not enough for you, then that just means you're operating under your own emotional biases and in denial about the facts. Why would I continue to debate someone who is selective with the evidence that proves a human beings existence begins at fertilisation? I've been around this LOOP with you before and I'm not interested in doing it again. You would probably argue with a doorpost. 》BYE.

I'm just telling you what your own source says (I even posted the part of your source that says it). And the thing is, even if a person starts at conception, my question is still a valid one.

If you can't respond to a question based on your own source, that's on you, not me.

 

[YahuahSaves]

I posted a link to the FDA's actions based on scientific findings, and you're accusing me of emotional bias? And then you post a link to the same false information I'd already refuted?

The FDA has a legal limit of BPA that has been shown to be detrimental to fetal brain development. The government can change anything they like, including laws, even if it isn't "backed up" by scientific research.

 

[YahuahSaves]

For it to be objective it would be need to be based on something external that can be measured.

It's pretty simple really, don't murder, don't rape etc, we're talking about universally significant crimes here. Someone's hurt feelings are more subjective than objective, however, harassment and discrimination still has a line that shouldn't be crossed.

Imagine a murder trial where you have to provide a video of the killing or it gets thrown out.

Imagine a murder trial where there's enough evidence and it still gets thrown out? Happens all the time.

 

[Lost Witness]

Imagine a murder trial where there's enough evidence and it still gets thrown out? Happens all the time.

That happens all the time... It's called abortion.... oh wait...
society doesn't care if innocent babies are slaughtered in droves

 

[Diamond72]

even then, the method can only work if her cycle is very regular.

The apps were developed to help women get pregnant. I knew a girl that was maybe 30 and her husband was 70 so their window of opportunity was only maybe 24 hours.

 

[NxNW]

View attachment 325835
Is this a human or not?

How far along is it?

 

[NxNW]

So you'll accept no valid scientific evidence whatsoever while providing zero counter-evidence of your own?

From my link (previously provided):
The federal agency said it will remove references on the contraception's packaging that claim, without scientific evidence, that the pill prevents a fertilized egg from implanting in the womb.

In a memo released Friday, the FDA clarified that taking Plan B pills is not the same as an abortion, a fact that has long been understood in the medical community.​

"Evidence does not support that the drug affects implantation or maintenance of a pregnancy after implantation, therefore it does not terminate a pregnancy," the FDA said in its statement.

Now that your false claim has been refuted, do you have anything relevant to add?

 

[Friedrich Rubinstein]

How far along is it?

You can't tell whether it is a human or a fish based on the picture? What do you think which species this individual belongs to?

 

[NxNW]

You can't tell whether it is a human or a fish based on the picture?

I didn't say that. Why do you continue to attack me with false claims?

What do you think which species this individual belongs to?

We haven't established that it's an individual or a member of any species yet.