March for Life today -- 'Science is Pro-Life'

[essentialsaltes]

The theme for today's March for Life in Washington DC is “Unique from Day One: Pro-Life is Pro-Science”

“Science is behind the Pro-Life Movement.” -Jeanne Mancini, President of March for Life

“Science is behind the pro-life movement. We see that medical and technological advancements always affirm the pro-life movement, for example, DNA is present at fertilization and no fingerprint on earth, past, present, or future, is the same. We know, too, a baby’s heart beats at just six weeks and we can distinctly observe it ourselves with ultrasound technology,” said Jeanne Mancini. “As science progresses, we see clearly that every life is unique from day one in the womb.”

“Life in its most vulnerable form, should be protected,” continued Mancini.


For discussion:

I know this is going to wander all over, but this is the Science forum. Not ethics, not politics.

What is the scientific evidence or reasoning supporting that final 'should be' statement?

 

[Tree of Life]

The theme for today's March for Life in Washington DC is “Unique from Day One: Pro-Life is Pro-Science”

“Science is behind the Pro-Life Movement.” -Jeanne Mancini, President of March for Life

“Science is behind the pro-life movement. We see that medical and technological advancements always affirm the pro-life movement, for example, DNA is present at fertilization and no fingerprint on earth, past, present, or future, is the same. We know, too, a baby’s heart beats at just six weeks and we can distinctly observe it ourselves with ultrasound technology,” said Jeanne Mancini. “As science progresses, we see clearly that every life is unique from day one in the womb.”

“Life in its most vulnerable form, should be protected,” continued Mancini.


For discussion:

I know this is going to wander all over, but this is the Science forum. Not ethics, not politics.

What is the scientific evidence or reasoning supporting that final 'should be' statement?

Scientific data alone cannot yield ethical conclusions.

My ethics professor in college used to say that he could describe in minute, scientific detail the skinning of a live cat. And nowhere will he have described the rightness of wrongness of the action.

But if we approach the issue of abortion with common ethical principles, scientific data may reveal whether or not we are acting consistently with our principles.

 

[pitabread]

People often confuse science with being prescriptive when it is in fact merely descriptive.

 

[Paulos23]

Science deals with what is. It can help us find out why women want abortions, which can lead to better policy about preventing abortions. But it doesn't give moral statements or absolutes in policy making.

it is a tool, not an authority.

 

[SkyWriting]

The theme for today's March for Life in Washington DC is “Unique from Day One: Pro-Life is Pro-Science”

“Science is behind the Pro-Life Movement.” -Jeanne Mancini, President of March for Life

“Science is behind the pro-life movement. We see that medical and technological advancements always affirm the pro-life movement, for example, DNA is present at fertilization and no fingerprint on earth, past, present, or future, is the same. We know, too, a baby’s heart beats at just six weeks and we can distinctly observe it ourselves with ultrasound technology,” said Jeanne Mancini. “As science progresses, we see clearly that every life is unique from day one in the womb.”

“Life in its most vulnerable form, should be protected,” continued Mancini.


For discussion:

I know this is going to wander all over, but this is the Science forum. Not ethics, not politics.

What is the scientific evidence or reasoning supporting that final 'should be' statement?

Over half of all Zygotes are naturally aborted. If we vow to protect each one, eventually we will remove every fertilized egg to an incubator to protect it. I don't see the Pro-Life position supporting this. Yet, that is the only valid conclusion assuming your statement.

The other option is to allow every egg to take it's natural course in the body of whoever is carrying it anywhere. It's a lot of work to find every pregnancy in the world and protect it's development. Are Pro-Life supporters planning for world pregnancy control or just talking smack?

 

[juvenissun]

What is the scientific evidence or reasoning supporting that final 'should be' statement?

Biologically, a life may be killed by another life in the condition of:
1. War
2. For food

Otherwise, scientifically, a life should not (no reason) be killed by other lives.

 

[durangodawood]

Biologically, a life may be killed by another life in the condition of:
1. War
2. For food

Otherwise, scientifically, a life should not (no reason) be killed by other lives.

You describe some (debatable) facts about how life "does" behave.... but then you switch that to "should", which takes it right out of the realm of science altogether.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Biologically, a life may be killed by another life in the condition of:
1. War
2. For food

Otherwise, scientifically, a life should not (no reason) be killed by other lives.

Bonus point for an attempt to answer the question, but I'm afraid I'm going to need a little more information.

Could you point to a scientific study or a high school biology textbook that states that war and food are the only conditions under which life may be killed?

I think even applying the term 'war' to nonhuman animals is a bit loose.

I know that descriptively, we know that a male lion that takes over a pride may kill any young cubs of his former rival. In which scientific study was it determined that lions may not or should not do this?

 

[juvenissun]

Could you point to a scientific study or a high school biology textbook that states that war and food are the only conditions under which life may be killed?

War is an act of killing for reasons promoted by evolution. Fighting for survival and benefit. This is common to human and to all animals.

We can add what I said to biology textbook. It is a correct and good statement.

The point for this thread is: If not for war and not for food, scientifically, we should not kill.

 

[juvenissun]

You describe some (debatable) facts about how life "does" behave.... but then you switch that to "should", which takes it right out of the realm of science altogether.

The issue is: Sciences support pro-life.

To kill a life, there should be a reason. Right?
In talking about biological reason, that is biological science. Without a good biological reason, there should be no kill.

 

[durangodawood]

.....To kill a life, there should be a reason. Right?...

Sure, for humans. But thats because we're reasoning beings capable of opinions. Thats what "should" is: an opinion.

As for the behavior of earthworms, or black holes, opinion doesnt really enter the picture. Its a matter of "how" or 'what", not 'should".

 

[essentialsaltes]

We can add what I said to biology textbook. It is a correct and good statement.

You may think so. But the question in the thread is what science says. Your statement is not in science textbooks, because it is not scientific.

 

[pitabread]

We can add what I said to biology textbook. It is a correct and good statement.

By whose standard?

 

[essentialsaltes]

In related news, the Indigenous Peoples March was the day before the Right to Life March. And it looks like some Catholic School boys who were in town for the latter showed up at the former and got up in a Vietnam vet's grill with their smug MAGA-hatted faces. Disrespectful little nitwits.

 

[juvenissun]

Sure, for humans. But thats because we're reasoning beings capable of opinions. Thats what "should" is: an opinion.

As for the behavior of earthworms, or black holes, opinion doesnt really enter the picture. Its a matter of "how" or 'what", not 'should".

Everything, even an ameba, must have a scientific reason when kills another life.

 

[juvenissun]

You may think so. But the question in the thread is what science says. Your statement is not in science textbooks, because it is not scientific.

It is. Take your example: A male lion who kills the cubs of other lion, has a reason. This reason is justified. The whole thing is a good scientific understanding.

 

[juvenissun]

By whose standard?

There could be a committee to talk about it.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

War is an act of killing for reasons promoted by evolution. Fighting for survival and benefit. This is common to human and to all animals.

We can add what I said to biology textbook. It is a correct and good statement.

The point for this thread is: If not for war and not for food, scientifically, we should not kill.

Why pick out war? the evolutionary case for war is debatable; there are plenty of other reasons for killing that have a much clearer evolutionary basis - including infanticide. Very few creatures go to war, but very many creatures practice infanticide.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Everything, even an ameba, must have a scientific reason when kills another life.

What makes a reason scientific?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

It is. Take your example: A male lion who kills the cubs of other lion, has a reason. This reason is justified. The whole thing is a good scientific understanding.

That's an example that's neither war nor food - it contradicts your claim in #6.