Fórum » In the News

protesters help Planned Parenthood raise money

 
  • No no, I said prove. That book is nice and all (it's by Morowitz and Trefil, by the way), but it does not provide a conclusive scientific response to the question. Morowitz makes his own conclusions from the evidence, but ultimatley those conclusions are the product of philosophical speculation, not science. He readily admits this fact, when prodded. He even refers to himself as a "natural philosopher".

    (By the way, many of his critics, even those who sympathize with his conclusions, have pointed out the incompatibility between his views on human life and his theory of ecological dependence, but that's a separate controversy.)

    Still waiting. I've got the ketchup ready.

    Editado por tractatus em Dez 31 2004, 22h09
  • Re: Re:

    Quoth killdXm:
    Quoth tractatus:
    Start proving, shitheads. I'm getting hungry.


    Why don't you just eat it, anyhow? If you're hungry, and have something to eat... wouldn't you just eat it? Natural instinct to survive? Or are human beings not included in that one...? ;)

    Cram it, sonny.

  • not until you "prove" to me that a fetus is not a clump of cells and tissue

    The Cat Game!



    Scrobblermarried to +shanelavalette
  • Re:

    Quoth molarbear:
    not until you "prove" to me that a fetus is not a clump of cells and tissue

    Is this an admission that science hasn't yet proven the status of a fetus?

  • if you know for a fact it has been proven, please share :)

    The Cat Game!



    Scrobblermarried to +shanelavalette
  • Quoth tractatus:
    Is this an admission that science hasn't yet proven the status of a fetus?

    It didn't sound like an admission to me.

    -Scott

    Editado por giveuptheghost em Dez 31 2004, 22h19
  • I'm not aware of anything to that effect, but that's not the point. Do you think it has been scientifically proven or not?

  • i think it depends on what your definition of a human being is.

    The Cat Game!



    Scrobblermarried to +shanelavalette
  • Re:

    Quoth molarbear:
    i think it depends on what your definition of a human being is.

    Uh, that's kind of the whole point of the exercise, retard. If science gave us a proven definition of a human being, then we wouldn't have to ask whether a fetus is a human being, now would we?

  • Re:

    Quoth giveuptheghost:
    Quoth tractatus:
    Is this an admission that science hasn't yet proven the status of a fetus?

    It didn't sound like an admission to me.

    -Scott

    Thanks for the input, "Scott".

    -Tractatus

  • pejorative terms

    you made a comment about killing babies, and now youre saying it is not known whether or not a fetus is a human being?

    everyone's got a different view regarding what a fetus is. i think it really just depends on what kind of morals (maybe thats not the best word) you have.

    The Cat Game!



    Scrobblermarried to +shanelavalette
    Editado por molarbear em Dez 31 2004, 22h37
  • Re:

    Quoth molarbear:
    pejorative terms

    you made a comment about killing babies, and now youre saying it is not known whether or not a fetus is a human being?

    everyone's got a different view regarding what a fetus is. i think it really just depends on what kind of morals (maybe thats not the best word) you have.

    Not to worry, I just used the word "babies" to piss off the intellectual halfwits and cultural sycophants who posted before me.

    So now you're saying that everybody has a different opinion on what a fetus is, and those opinions are conditioned by personal morals (or values, or principles, or whatever you want to call them)? The prospect of finding a scientific answer to this problem is getting dimmer by the second.

    The point of scientific investigation is to move past opinion and establish definitive evidence in favor of or against some ex ante hypothesis. But you claim that there's rampant disconsensus on the status of a fetus, so are you saying that science hasn't provided us with a proven answer to the question?

  • Re: Re:

    Quoth tractatus:
    If science gave us a proven definition of a human being, then we wouldn't have to ask whether a fetus is a human being, now would we?


    yeah that's what im saying, isnt that what youre saying?

    The Cat Game!



    Scrobblermarried to +shanelavalette
  • Re: Re: Re:

    Quoth molarbear:
    Quoth tractatus:
    If science gave us a proven definition of a human being, then we wouldn't have to ask whether a fetus is a human being, now would we?


    yeah that's what im saying, isnt that what youre saying?

    Of course. The difference is that I realize the logical and moral inconsistency of supporting the right to abortion in the face of indeterminate scientific evidence, while you do not. Neither do the other posters in this thread, apparently.

  • what about overpopulation? what about the mother's life? and even if abortion was illegal, women would still get them, probably from unsafe clinics where they could become sick/die.

    The Cat Game!



    Scrobblermarried to +shanelavalette
    Editado por molarbear em Dez 31 2004, 23h08
    • setSuna disse...
    • Usuário
    • Dez 31 2004, 23h16
    I still want to be able to kill living people. That would help solve over population.
    GOD DAMN! I am the man.

  • Re:

    Quoth molarbear:
    what about overpopulation? what about the mother's life? and even if abortion was illegal, women would still get them, probably from unsafe clinics where they could become sick/die.

    Those are all legitimate problems, but you're missing the point. I'm confident that science will one day be able to identify the precise mechanisms of human life and solve this problem once and for all. Frankly, I don't give a shit whether they decide for or against the fetus. But until the matter is scientifically settled, pragmatism tells us not to allow abortions.

    Consider the following scenarios. My only moral assumption is that people value human life, regardless of how that's defined. As human beings, human life is our most highly valued good. Supporters and opponents of abortion both agree on this; they just disagree on what a "human being" is.

    Scenario 1: abortion is totally illegal. A group of scientists announces that it has finally determined what a human being is.
    • Scientist: "We've determined that human life begins at birth, not at conception."
      Audience: "This is good news, but there have been 30 million women who wanted to get abortions and weren't able to. I'm sure at least half of them, maybe even most of them, suffered some sort of inconvenience or harm. That's a shame."


    Scenario 2: abortion is completely legal. A group of scientists announces that it has determined what a human being is.
    • Scientist: "We've determined that human life begins at conception, not at birth."
      Audience: "That's good to know, but we've just killed 30 million human beings."


    I think any reasonable person would find the second scenario far more repulsive than the first. If only one woman desires/obtains an abortion for flippant reasons, the scales tip in favor of opposing abortion ex ante.

    Without assuming anything other than an abstract commitment to human life, it's obvious that the burden of proof lies with abortion advocates; the costs of them being wrong are much, much higher than the costs of their opponents being wrong.

Usuários anônimos não podem postar mensagens. É preciso fazer login ou criar uma conta para postar nos fóruns.