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

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

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

The vast majority of miscarriages and stillbirths result from biological defects; protection won't change that.

But, unsurprisingly, that doesn't address the point.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

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.

Your uncertainty and beliefs are irrelevant; it happens. The evolutionary explanation should be obvious.

Nevertheless, it contradicts your requirement of war, which by your own definition doesn't include what you call, "unilateral killing, killing of nonresistant life". I'm still waiting for you to explain how you reconcile this contradiction.

Incidentally, you also said, "A form of "fight" is needed in a war.", and then, "...they try to run away. That is a form or resistance, and it is a war."; Any fule kno know that 'flight' is not a form of 'fight' (sensible people know it is not resistance either).

You have explicitly contradicted yourself.

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.

Does a threat to her long-term health count as a threat to her life? For example, anything that weakened her physiologically could make her more susceptible to life-threatening disease...

So exactly what counts as a 'biological threat' to life?

You needn't bother answering - these questions are rhetorical; it's pretty clear to me that your 'argument', such as it is, is neither logical, reasonable, consistent, nor honest.

 

[juvenissun]

Incidentally, you also said, "A form of "fight" is needed in a war.", and then, "...they try to run away. That is a form or resistance, and it is a war."; Any fule kno know that 'flight' is not a form of 'fight' (sensible people know it is not resistance either).

Retreat is a strategic fight. If your enemy retreat, chase them. Otherwise, you may stumble in the future.

 

[juvenissun]

Does a threat to her long-term health count as a threat to her life? For example, anything that weakened her physiologically could make her more susceptible to life-threatening disease...

My sis-in-law was in that situation. She was told not to bear child otherwise, she might die early. But she did regardless. She died early exactly as predicted. In that case, it is a personal choice.

I think she made a very wise choice, not biologically, but humanly. If she were an animal, she definitely won't want to have the child. My niece is now a beautiful girl and has a very good family.

 

[tas8831]

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?

Mancini's entire rant is a non sequitur.

THAT a zygote has a unique DNA sequence is irrelevant - each individual sperm and egg have unique DNA sequences. Countless unique-DNA-having zygotes die in utero (spontaneous abortion) - how does Mancini propose we 'protect' them, I wonder?

Fetus worshippers would do well to avoid trying to make "scientific" arguments and admit that they are just obsessed with other people's fetuses and want to dictate what others do in their personal lives.


When I was in grad school, and in the middle of taking graduate Embryology, I attended a health fair with my wife in a mall. A 'pro-life' booth was there for some reason, and they had on display a 'did you know this about the fetus??' type of thing, with a list of 10 "facts" that supposedly supported their fetus worship 'scientifically' - even though I was only about halfway through my embryology class, I was able to determine that 7 of the 10 'facts' were not facts.

'Science' tells us an embryo has has a certain chance of becoming a fetus, which has a certain chance of being viable. History tells us that humans have been controlling their fertility/populations for as long as humans have been writing this stuff down - from recipes for abortive elixirs, to instructions on how to kill a fetus through the abdominal wall, to instructions on how to insert foreign objects into the uterus to prevent implantation (the ancients did not know this is what happened, but inserting foreign objects into the uterus does inhibit implantation), to the Spartans leaving sickly newborns in the woods.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Retreat is a strategic fight. If your enemy retreat, chase them. Otherwise, you may stumble in the future.

Nah; it's fight or flight. They are two different things. You can call running away 'strategic retreat' if you like, but people will point and snigger behind your back; that kind of equivocation is normally used for comic effect.

 

[juvenissun]

Nah; it's fight or flight. They are two different things. You can call running away 'strategic retreat' if you like, but people will point and snigger behind your back; that kind of equivocation is normally used for comic effect.

Among all cases, if there is one strategic retreat, it can be entitled as a fight. That is why this term exists.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

My sis-in-law was in that situation. She was told not to bear child otherwise, she might die early. But she did regardless. She died early exactly as predicted. In that case, it is a personal choice.

I think she made a very wise choice, not biologically, but humanly. If she were an animal, she definitely won't want to have the child. My niece is now a beautiful girl and has a very good family.

I think you'll find your sister-in-law was a mammal, and so qualified as an animal; I wouldn't be surprised if she had suckled her young, but you'll know more about that than I.

My point was that, as stated, your criteria could be used to justify any abortion at any time because birth itself is a biological risk to the life of the mother. This doesn't help your 'argument'.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Among all cases, if there is one strategic retreat, it can be entitled as a fight. That is why this term exists.

When you're in a hole it is advisable to stop digging.

 

[juvenissun]

My point was that, as stated, your criteria could be used to justify any abortion at any time because birth itself is a biological risk to the life of the mother. This doesn't help your 'argument'.

No. It is a biological call. It is scientific, not arbitrary. That is the whole point in this argument.

 

[juvenissun]

When you're in a hole it is advisable to stop digging.

You are in the hole, not me.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

No. It is a biological call. It is scientific, not arbitrary. That is the whole point in this argument.

Birth is biological, as are its risks

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

You are in the hole, not me.

Lol! You missed off the "Nyah, nyah!"

From here I can see your 'argument' has sunk without trace

 

[juvenissun]

Birth is biological, as are its risks

Everything has risk. What is the point?

 

[juvenissun]

Lol! You missed off the "Nyah, nyah!"

From here I can see your 'argument' has sunk without trace

I don't care about you. They are still in MY mind. I argued for myself, not you.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Everything has risk. What is the point?

Try to keep up - this was about your 'argument', made in #67: "life in the womb should not be killed according to biological science."

However, you then said, #75: "if a mother's life is threatened biologically, then she is scientifically justified to kill the life in the womb."

I pointed out in #88: "... as stated, your criteria could be used to justify any abortion at any time because birth itself is a biological risk to the life of the mother."

If you can't see by now how your two statements are in conflict, I recommend a course in critical thinking. Failing that, "The Critical Thinking Toolkit" by Foresman, Fosi, & Watson is worth a read, or I can also recommend Zarefsky's "Argumentation: The Study of Effective Reasoning"

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... I argued for myself, not you.

Of course you did. That's why you argued it in an online forum...

 

[juvenissun]

Try to keep up - this was about your 'argument', made in #67: "life in the womb should not be killed according to biological science."

However, you then said, #75: "if a mother's life is threatened biologically, then she is scientifically justified to kill the life in the womb."

I pointed out in #88: "... as stated, your criteria could be used to justify any abortion at any time because birth itself is a biological risk to the life of the mother."

If you can't see by now how your two statements are in conflict, I recommend a course in critical thinking. Failing that, "The Critical Thinking Toolkit" by Foresman, Fosi, & Watson is worth a read, or I can also recommend Zarefsky's "Argumentation: The Study of Effective Reasoning"

If a long-term risk is biologically justified, then it should be considered. However, long-term harm could also be imposed by the performance of abortion. So, the consideration of long-term effect is not practical to the issue.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

If a long-term risk is biologically justified, then it should be considered. However, long-term harm could also be imposed by the performance of abortion. So, the consideration of long-term effect is not practical to the issue.

Who said it had to be long-term? Birth is potentially a short-term or immediate risk of death.

Find another argument.

 

[juvenissun]

I'm sure you did. That's why you argued it in an online forum...

In fact, not only in online situation, but in all situations. For me, arguing is learning. If I think my reasons still stand at the end, it means I learned less. So I do wish you could be right. But I seldom see the case.