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

[juvenissun]

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

Find another argument.

YOU brought the issue of long-term.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... For me, arguing is learning. If I think my reasons still stand at the end, it means I learned less.

OK, that explains a lot. I hope you can see that your opinion of the success your own arguments is likely to be slanted in your favour; it's called confirmation bias.

'Nuff said.

 

[durangodawood]

This discussion:
A: I'm right
B: youre wrong
A: exactly, thats my point!

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

YOU brought the issue of long-term.

Yes; I suppose asking whether a long-term threat to health counts as a threat to life, is redundant when birth is a threat to life regardless of timescale.

You're right - your argument is unsound regardless of timescale.

 

[juvenissun]

OK, that explains a lot. I hope you can see that your opinion of the success your own arguments is likely to be slanted in your favour; it's called confirmation bias.

'Nuff said.

I tried hard not to be that way (for my own sake). After many years of training and experience, I believe I can see the weakness of my argument when it is reminded. And I will say thanks to the one who reminded me. Since I am educating myself, I won't want to cheat myself as much as possible.

 

[juvenissun]

Yes; I suppose asking whether a long-term threat to health counts as a threat to life, is redundant when birth is a threat to life regardless of timescale.

You're right - your argument is unsound regardless of timescale.

From the beginning, I suggested that biology is not on the side of abortion, on a short-time base. This scientific argument is clear and much less biased.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

From the beginning, I suggested that biology is not on the side of abortion, on a short-time base. This scientific argument is clear and much less biased.

Well that's incorrect. Biology does not take sides, and natural abortion occurs at all stages of pregnancy.

You can argue on moral and ethical terms whether wilful termination should be allowed, and if so, under what constraints, and you can use scientific data to delineate your moral and ethical position - that's what the abortion debate is about; but science, biology, and evolution have and make no moral or ethical claims or judgements, they can only inform our moral and ethical judgments.

Your argument was itself stillborn.

 

[juvenissun]

Well that's incorrect. Biology does not take sides, and natural abortion occurs at all stages of pregnancy.

You can argue on moral and ethical terms whether wilful termination should be allowed, and if so, under what constraints, and you can use scientific data to delineate your moral and ethical position - that's what the abortion debate is about; but science, biology, and evolution have and make no moral or ethical claims or judgements, they can only inform our moral and ethical judgments.

Your argument was itself stillborn.

Biology can reason toward a side.

 

[Shemjaza]

Biology can reason toward a side.

Then you should be able to demonstrate that chain of reason not just make assertions.


This might be logically sound, but it isn't useful or true in the real world:
1) Juvenissun's ideas are correct and reasonable
2) Juvenissun likes the idea of creationism
THEREFORE:
3) Creationism is correct and reasonable

 

[juvenissun]

Then you should be able to demonstrate that chain of reason not just make assertions.

I did.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Biology can reason toward a side.

As I said previously, biology can inform reasoning to favour a 'side' - but the choice of the 'side' is a choice based on human values, a moral and ethical one, not a scientific one (though, of course, it is behaviour emergent from the biology of the brain).

For example, you might decide that brain activity is the source of consciousness, self, and experience and without that there is no person; consequently, you might suggest that a foetus is not a person until it has a brain capable of such activity, and that therefore termination is justified up to that point but not beyond. In this case, you would have used science to inform your moral and ethical decision about when personhood is present or absent, and you could use science to establish roughly how long it takes before a foetus is a person by this definition.

But whether a termination is justifiable in the absence of personhood (by that definition) is a moral and ethical decision; some might say that what counts is the potential to achieve personhood, and that any foetus that appears to have that potential should not be terminated. This is not a scientific decision, but science can be used to inform the judgement of the potential viability of the foetus.

 

[juvenissun]

As I said previously, biology can inform reasoning to favour a 'side' - but the choice of the 'side' is a choice based on human values, a moral and ethical one, not a scientific one (though, of course, it is behaviour emergent from the biology of the brain).

What you considered is out of the scope of the OP. We are talking about science, not human value.

 

[essentialsaltes]

What you considered is out of the scope of the OP.

The post is on-topic. (And in agreement with the OP -- namely that there is no such answer to the question posed.)

 

[juvenissun]

The post is on-topic. (And in agreement with the OP -- namely that there is no such answer to the question posed.)

Science (biology) is pro-life.
No consideration of human value is in the survey.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Science (biology) is pro-life.

Could you point to a scientific study or a high school biology textbook that concludes or states that science is pro-life?

 

[juvenissun]

Could you point to a scientific study or a high school biology textbook that concludes or states that science is pro-life?

No. If there is, your OP would worth nothing.

 

[Shemjaza]

I did.

No, you just made up new definitions... and new interpretations of the OP... then declared yourself reasonable.

I give up on your games.

 

[juvenissun]

I give up on your games.

You are never in.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

What you considered is out of the scope of the OP. We are talking about science, not human value.

The OP involves both science and human values. If you didn't realise that before, you know now.

 

[juvenissun]

The OP involves both science and human values. If you didn't realise that before, you know now.

In my point, science is the issue. Human value is too luxury to talk about.