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

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

This is the same situation as infants be killed during ancient war, or people killed in air raid today. It is just part of a war.

So you're calling a male lion unilaterally killing unresisting cubs part of a war? A war between the male and the cubs?

Doesn't this contradict the exception you made for unilateral and unresisting killing?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I am using these words scientifically. It is all based on action.
You try to kill me, I ran away so you failed. That IS war and I am resisting.
Very simple. No distortion on any word.

OK - like I said, if that's how you want to define those words. But it is not a scientific usage - I trained as and had a career as a biologist, and I did not hear those words used in the contexts you describe, nor AFAIK are they commonly used in those contexts, either in the sciences or elsewhere.

Just saying they're your definitions, and your usage is not particularly scientific.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Human behavior cannot be entirely predicted (your sense of should) nor entirely justified (the OP scientist's sense of should) by animal behavior generally. Humans operate under a vast additional set of conditions beyond what the rest of the animal world does. These conditions are commonly known as "human culture".

Lots of human cultural activity responds to motives completely removed from the biological imperatives you rely on for your previous "should" statements.

Having said that, human activity involving killing is generally not so distant or different from that of other creatures - for example, chimps.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Should, in this case, means "likely to". Nothing about moral.
It should rain.

Then this is not an answer to the question in the OP.

 

[durangodawood]

Humans "should" not have people who devote their entire productive career to making art. Because other animals never do that. or something.

 

[juvenissun]

Just be precise about which denotation you are (and are not) justifying with your reasoning.

Also: for either sense of "should" you are still wrong.

Human behavior cannot be entirely predicted (your sense of should) nor entirely justified (the OP scientist's sense of should) by animal behavior generally. Humans operate under a vast additional set of conditions beyond what the rest of the animal world does. These conditions are commonly known as "human culture".

Lots of human cultural activity responds to motives completely removed from the biological imperatives you rely on for your previous "should" statements.

We are talking about biological science, includes evolution. Psychology is a different thing and "should" not be included in this thread.

 

[juvenissun]

That doesn't really answer the question, the OP was about whether science is pro-life. Are you suggesting or agreeing that science is 'pro-life', i.e. anti-abortion? Is that the specific kind of killing you want to exclude from being justified by biological advantage?

Are there other types of killing you feel are unjustified by the criteria you've posted?

Yes, life in the womb should not be killed according to biological science.

Other example? I think genocide could be another one.

 

[juvenissun]

OK - like I said, if that's how you want to define those words. But it is not a scientific usage - I trained as and had a career as a biologist, and I did not hear those words used in the contexts you describe, nor AFAIK are they commonly used in those contexts, either in the sciences or elsewhere.

Just saying they're your definitions, and your usage is not particularly scientific.

Animal societies have wars. This is biological.
Some lion cubs escaped the killing and grown up.
Both words are used precisely in biology.

 

[durangodawood]

We are talking about biological science, includes evolution. Psychology is a different thing and "should" not be included in this thread.

Obvioulsy... and I mean obviously, biological science is insufficient to describe all the "shoulds" (predictions, in your way of thinking) of human behavior.

Further, if you limit yourself to biological science in analyzing human behavior, you will arrive at "should" statements that are demonstrably false.

 

[juvenissun]

Obvioulsy... and I mean obviously, biological science is insufficient to describe all the "shoulds" (predictions, in your way of thinking) of human behavior.

Further, if you limit yourself to biological science in analyzing human behavior, you will arrive at "should" statements that are demonstrably false.

This is what this thread is about.

 

[Colter]

Doesn't abortion reduce the kind of people who would abort their children? Seeing some of those degenerate people at the women's march make one kind of glad that they aren't raising children.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Yes, life in the womb should not be killed according to biological science.

Are you suggesting that there is no advantage to the mother? that it's done for no reason?

Does it matter that nature itself kills even more of the unborn through miscarriage and stillbirth?

Other example? I think genocide could be another one.

Why is that different? By your criteria, it's war even if the victims try to run away.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Animal societies have wars. This is biological.
Some lion cubs escaped the killing and grown up.
Both words are used precisely in biology.

When ethologists may use 'war', but in my experience, they use the common meaning of group conflict, not your extraordinary definition. The only use I have heard of 'resistance' is in regard to forceful opposition, as in the attempts of victims of predation to see off the predator.

You still haven't answered my question about the male lion that unilaterally kills unresisting cubs.

 

[juvenissun]

Are you suggesting that there is no advantage to the mother? that it's done for no reason?

Does it matter that nature itself kills even more of the unborn through miscarriage and stillbirth?

Generally, life in the womb "should be" protected. That would reduce the chance of miscarriage.

 

[juvenissun]

You still haven't answered my question about the male lion that unilaterally kills unresisting cubs.

I am not sure why would a male lion want to do that. Zoologists would give a reason to justify the killing. I believe if an animal is not threatened for survival reasons, it won't kill.

For the same biological reason, if a mother's life is threatened biologically, then she is scientifically justified to kill the life in the womb.

 

[juvenissun]

When ethologists may use 'war', but in my experience, they use the common meaning of group conflict, not your extraordinary definition. The only use I have heard of 'resistance' is in regard to forceful opposition, as in the attempts of victims of predation to see off the predator.

You still haven't answered my question about the male lion that unilaterally kills unresisting cubs.

Again, I am not trying to define any word. I use the best word to make a reasoning as short and precise as possible.

 

[durangodawood]

This is what this thread is about.

Not judging by your posts, in which you insist biological science has some kind of definitive say about exactly when humans should and shouldnt kill each other.

 

[juvenissun]

Not judging by your posts, in which you insist biological science has some kind of definitive say about exactly when humans should and shouldnt kill each other.

Yes, that is my point.

 

[Shemjaza]

I am not defining anything. I am reasoning. If you don’t follow, then you can quit.

I'm sure I will quit soon.

But when you entire point is to describe what various words of concepts mean, all you are doing is defining.

As to reason, you still haven't made any kind of clear point about science and the pro-life movement.

 

[durangodawood]

Yes, that is my point.

Well now I'm completely lost as to what you think on this issue as your point seems to wobble all over the place.