DescentBB

vision wrote:

snoopy wrote:How do you choose between the definitions using only science?

How do you not know the answer to this? You practically said it yourself: "tell me what's objective and measurable about 'normally'." Normal is based on a normal distribution. Like I mentioned earlier, birth and death are gradients. Different factors in fetal development add or subtract to the probability of viability. It's as objective as we can be given the current body of scientific knowledge, and it improves every day. Likewise, the more we make high-end medical care available, the greater our window of viability – which means fewer deaths to the unborn. If you want to end abortion, support science and advanced medical care for all.

Yet, you dodge the essence of my question: How do you use science to pick between viability = [a] where [a] is "capable of growing or developing" or viability = [a] + conditional qualifiers?

snoopy wrote:How do you use science to pick between viability...

Don't act stupid, you already know the answer. If we know the probability of [a] and know the probability of [conditional qualifiers] you multiply them together, not add them. Be sure not to get caught up in the scientific definition of viability, which is soft, and the legal one, which is hard. And either way, it's not a man's choice. Ever.

Strip a man of any reproductive rights and you strip him of any reproductive responsibilities at the same time.

The two CANNOT be separated.

One sex having all of the reproductive rights is absolutely absurd, and based on all kinds of false reasoning. (you know…all that crap that lets you sleep at night, like its just a blob of flesh, or an extra body part)

Two questions:

vision wrote:Likewise, the more we make high-end medical care available, the greater our window of viability – which means fewer deaths to the unborn. If you want to end abortion, support science and advanced medical care for all.

Are you implying that abortions only happen because of lack of viability? (That's what you appear to be implying by "science + advanced medical care => end abortions".)

vision wrote:And either way, it's not a man's choice. Ever.

"Ever"? Other than cases where the life of the mother is in danger (in which case the state has a vested interest in protecting her), what is it that makes you say the state can never have any interest in protecting the other life?

Note:
* You can't fall back to viability here, as you said, "either way", i.e. "even without considering viability".
* If your answer involves something along the lines of, "it's growing in her body", then please follow up with rationale as to why the state cannot have interest in a life because of its location/dependence on another.

Foil wrote:Are you implying that abortions only happen because of lack of viability? (That's what you appear to be implying by "science + advanced medical care => end abortions".)

I think he's saying that if, due to some scientific advancement, viability began at conception, then all abortions would suddenly become unethical under his theory (which seems weird) but also that women wouldn't need to have them anymore (namely, they could give the two-celled organism up for adoption).

Foil wrote:Are you implying that abortions only happen because of lack of viability?

Absolutely not. Jeff250 caught my meaning. Abortions happen because people make the decision not to have a child. Some women either cannot or will not carry a fetus to full term and give the baby up for adoption. Abortions are a horrible but necessary compromise. In the future, rather than have an abortion, a mother can choose to give the child up without carrying it to full term. Science will make that a possibility long before we have the social structure to support such a thing, so we better start making preparations now for millions more babies later. I know women who would have chosen this option if it existed. Abortions are terrible things.

Foil wrote:"Ever"?

Ever.

I said it's not a man's choice. I said nothing of the State. The State is our collective decision-making. The reason we have legal abortions in this country has everything to do with the rise of women's rights.

Spidey wrote:One sex having all of the reproductive rights is absolutely absurd...

Here is where I get on my feminist high-horse. When a woman gets pregnant, carrying the child and delivering it is a gift from her to the father. A GIFT. You are not entitled to a gift. You may have had consensual intercourse with her, but pregnancy is something she does alone, not with you. You want to get pregnant? Support science and we'll make it so (though probably not before the end of our lives. We're all to old to be pregnant anyway).

Yea…all alone.

EDIT:

Male reproductive rights/responsibilities begin long before intercourse, in fact intercourse is barely relevant. Humans mate and reproduce in bonded pairs, we are not fish, this bonding is ritualized in something called marriage, where two people become one, and share in all of life’s aspects equally. Yes a man forfeits his rights if they are not married. (legally at least)

A child is not a gift bestowed on one person by another it’s a process that two people undertake together.

Now I won’t even go into the DNA aspect, or how nature designed one of the two to carry the blob of flesh, while the other provides food, shelter, protection…etc…oh ★■◆●…I just did.

Man I could go on and on explaining this to you, but I know in my heart it won’t matter one bit, so I’m going to cut my losses right here.

Oh, and as for your “feminism” I knock you off of your feminist high horse from my humanist ivory tower, because your feminism in this issue sounds more like pussy whippedism.

vision wrote:

snoopy wrote:How do you use science to pick between viability...

Don't act stupid, you already know the answer. If we know the probability of [a] and know the probability of [conditional qualifiers] you multiply them together, not add them. Be sure not to get caught up in the scientific definition of viability, which is soft, and the legal one, which is hard. And either way, it's not a man's choice. Ever.

I certainly have my own opinion about how and why you choose between the two definitions, but I'm asking you because I want to hear yours.

With respect to your introduction of probability distributions: it doesn't help us with my original question. Your distributions certainly give us some mathematical ways to estimate survivability given a certain set of conditions, but again that's not my question.

To restate my question: One definition states "capable of growing or developing" - with the implied [in a theoretical sense, given the proper conditions (whatever they may be)]. The second definition states "capable of living; especially : having attained such form and development as to be normally capable of surviving outside the mother's womb" - which is in essence a rewriting of the previous definition, but with a limited set of acceptable conditions. [explicitly, "within the mother's womb" is excluded as a member of the acceptable set of conditions] Additionally operation in the theoretical realm vs. the practical realm is somewhat obfuscated.

So, given that the first definition is pretty clearly objective [it's pretty much universally going to either be true or false] and the second both drastically narrows the scope of the word and introduces subjectivity, how do you scientifically justify the use of the narrow, subjective definition? Remember that my ultimate goal is to demonstrate that the term "viability" isn't really a scientifically/objectively useful one when it comes to the abortion issue.

Foil wrote:Are you implying that abortions only happen because of lack of viability? (That's what you appear to be implying by "science + advanced medical care => end abortions".)

Jeff250 wrote:I think he's saying that if, due to some scientific advancement, viability began at conception, then all abortions would suddenly become unethical under his theory (which seems weird) but also that women wouldn't need to have them anymore (namely, they could give the two-celled organism up for adoption).

vision wrote:Jeff250 caught my meaning... In the future, rather than have an abortion, a mother can choose to give the child up without carrying it to full term.

Okay, let's say that happens. Due to a brilliant scientific advancement, women can give up newly-conceived embryos, rather than aborting them. (Note: That would be fantastic.)

Then the question becomes: Will they, simply because they can?

Consider the spectrum of reasons for abortion: While many are due to medical necessity, a high percentage fall into the "I just don't want this" range. (Stats on this are readily available.)

My objection: Removing necessity as a reason would certainly reduce instances of abortion... but it would not by any means "end abortions", as vision appears to claim.

vision wrote:

Foil wrote:"Ever"?

Ever.

I said it's not a man's choice. I said nothing of the State. The State is our collective decision-making.

Yet you are making an argument involving the state. You've somehow connected "men should have no input" (I can see this, to some extent, at least with the father) to "the state should have no interest" (which makes no sense to me, as the state always has a vested interest in public health).

vision wrote:The reason we have legal abortions in this country has everything to do with the rise of women's rights.

Note that by granting 100% of the rights to the mother, you are implicitly denying any legal rights of the fetus here. You've apparently decided it's a binary thing. Why?

(Again, if your argument is along the lines of "it's growing in her body", then I need some follow-up rationale about why location/dependence implies something about the rights of one over the other being absolute.)

Snoopy, you are conflating the scientific and legal definitions of viability. I can't help you there. You are trying to cram one into another. The legal definitions are informed by science, but are not science themselves. None of that changes the fact that, as medical science increases, we should continually revisit the law and revise.

Foil, I imagine in the far future questions like this won't make any sense, but in the near future, given the choice to end the development of a fetus or allow it to continue free from the responsibility of parenthood, I strongly suspect women will do the later. I feel confident making that assumption after talking with several friends who had abortions. Given the right societal changes we can reduce abortions to a level of rarity that it is no longer an issue to debate.

pussy whippedismThanks for the sexist remark and proof of my point.

vision wrote:...I strongly suspect women will do the lat[t]er. I feel confident making that assumption after talking with several friends who had abortions.

So the claim that a future advancement will be the "end [of] abortion" is based on an assumption based on some personal conversations?

That's fine, but you can't demand that pro-life folk drop their focus to join yours ("If you want to end abortion, support science...") with such a subjective stance based on a future unknown.

------------

Note: I'm still waiting on the answer to my other question.

Foil wrote:So the claim that a future advancement will be the "end [of] abortion" is based on an assumption based on some personal conversations?

What incentive would a person have to kill off fetal development of it wasn't necessary and someone had a choice? You don't think the majority of people in the world would choose life whenever possible? If the high percentage falls into "I don't want this" and they can have that wish fulfilled without abortion, where is the problem?

Foil wrote:Note that by granting 100% of the rights to the mother, you are implicitly denying any legal rights of the fetus here. You've apparently decided it's a binary thing. Why?

Legal rights are for women to decide, not me. I don't even think men should be involved at the State level, and any opinion I currently have doesn't matter. I have zero role in a pregnancy other than what my parter and I agree on. She's in charge and that's that. Ideally, we wouldn't kill off any fetuses.

Sorry about the sexist remark, but I don’t know what the obligatory politically correct term is for such a person.

But I do know this…

Any man that thinks his role in reproduction is limited to planting a seed and whatever she tells him it is, has no clue about human reproduction or what it is to be a man.

Also, any man who would let his mate “do pregnancy alone” doesn’t deserve to be called a man.

...........................

Actually I can agree somewhat to the idea of what a man’s rights and responsibilities are during pregnancy, as long as the terms are not being dictated by the woman, because she is in no way “the boss”.

I don’t know why it is so difficult to understand that reproduction is a process that begins before sex and ends long after birth…and pregnancy is only a part of that process, and there is no “boss” involved, nor any “gifts”.

The roles of males and females in reproduction are first set by biology, and then by social norms, not by whims, and even if some of the former can be changed, it by no means should ever be set by whims.

You can’t just be the boss of something like reproduction.

Spidey wrote:Any man that thinks his role in reproduction is limited to planting a seed and whatever she tells him it is, has no clue about human reproduction or what it is to be a man.

Cool. What part of body do you use during pregnancy again?

Spidey wrote:Also, any man who would let his mate “do pregnancy alone” doesn’t deserve to be called a man.

More patriarchal sexism. She can do it alone if she wants. It's by her blessing that you are allowed to help. Remember that.

Spidey wrote:You can’t just be the boss of something like reproduction.

Except that she is, and you aren't, and it's proven by the fact she can manage pregnancy and childbirth without your input whatsoever. FACTS. Learn them.

“Cool. What part of body do you use during pregnancy again?”

Mostly my ass, feet and arms while I drive to pick up those pickles.

You seem to fixate on the pregnancy as the entire enchilada when I’m am discussing reproduction.

And yes, a woman can manage the entire thing* by herself, but nature never designed it that way. But she can’t manage reproduction all by her lonesome.

*Pregnancy…not reproduction.

...................................

You can go on calling me a sexist all day and night long, but the difference between you and me is simple, my central concern is for the child, then the parents and the family in general, and your concern is fixated only on the mother.

If that makes me a sexist, then I wear the title proudly.

Spidey wrote:You seem to fixate on the pregnancy as the entire enchilada when I’m am discussing reproduction.

I'm advocating reduction in abortions through the use of scientific advancement. If you want to talk about the social responsibility of our current system that is a different conversation.

Spidey wrote:And yes, a woman can manage the entire thing* by herself, but nature never designed it that way. But she can’t manage reproduction all by her lonesome.

*Pregnancy…not reproduction.

She can do it with the most minimal contribution from the opposite sex. I think a woman's rights should be equal to the amount of her contribution to reproduction, which is almost the entire thing.

Spidey wrote:You can go on calling me a sexist all day and night long, but the difference between you and me is simple, my central concern is for the child...

You realize I am arguing for the reduction of abortions to the point of extreme rarity, right? If you want to have a different discussion of societal responsibility for parenting after the child is born, then go ahead and start that thread. Or just take this one, because I'm bored now.

vision wrote:Snoopy, you are conflating the scientific and legal definitions of viability. I can't help you there. You are trying to cram one into another. The legal definitions are informed by science, but are not science themselves. None of that changes the fact that, as medical science increases, we should continually revisit the law and revise.

Okay. My argument is that any way in which the legal definition (able to live outside of the womb) of viability appears to be informed by science is nothing more than an illusion. We are where we are with it's respect, but don't point to science as justification for where we are - because our legal definition of viability is born out of social/political convenience, not pure objectivity. I'll give you that the legal definition makes attempts at being measurable (although, as you point out it's inevitably going to be a question of probability) - but that doesn't make it informed by science, it just makes it possible to evaluate cases against the definition using science.

Given that... I have the place to deplore our (as a society) lazy use of some arbitrary (born out of social/political convenience) metric to justify killing people - because I disagree with the metric. Furthermore, since I value individual life over individual freedom, I assert that your arguments about women's right's are moot - because when we're pitting a life of one against the freedom of another, the life of the one wins. Sure, some day we may no longer have to pit the two against each other, but today we do - and today we have to make a decision about which we value more. You choose to dehumanize the fetus so you can resolve the conflict - by defining out the rights of the fetus, only leaving the rights of the woman. I choose to live with the conflict, and conclude that I'm forced to ask the woman to suspend her right to freedom in the interest of the fetuses right to life.

snoopy wrote:Sure, some day we may no longer have to pit the two against each other, but today we do - and today we have to make a decision about which we value more.

I agree, but rather than waste time and resources arguing about our shitty social compromise I prefer to accept it and promote a different kind of solution. I firmly believe that by the end of this century the technology will exist to save a life from the time a woman first realizes she is pregnant. To some, an artificial womb sounds like something out of a horror story, but those who truly value life will become role models and set fears to rest.

vision wrote:I firmly believe that by the end of this century the technology will exist to save a life from the time a woman first realizes she is pregnant.

If the technology existed to allow us to remove cancer, but let the cancer grow safely on its own, would you use it? I wouldn't, because I believe cancer is a disease and it should be killed. And I would think anyone working on such technology was an idiot, and not want my tax dollars going to support them.

The rhetoric coming from one side says that a zygote/embryo/fetus is not a life, not human, just a blob of cells, etc. The problem isn't merely in the technology, but in the philosophy as well. When we uncritically accept dehumanizing terminology -- terminology that treats the unborn as basically cancer, rather than as basically a baby -- that removes the impetus to attempt technological solutions, it removes the impetus to fund research, and it removes the impetus to use such solutions when they exist (there are women who would opt for late-term abortion rather than induced labor, even if the risks were identical, because they're convinced the thing they're aborting isn't human and doesn't feel pain.)

Technological advancement is good. But we also need better education -- that makes it clear that, from conception, you're dealing with a unique human life, and that makes it clear that at certain developmental milestones it becomes able to feel pain, begins to have "higher" brain activity, etc. We need to do away with the misleading rhetoric that says "blob of cells" when the embryo has fingers and toes and eyes and a heartbeat and primitive neural activity and can feel pain. Even if we still retain a compromise position, we should stop using Orwellian terminology to hide the nature of what that compromise is -- ending the life of a human being at some particular developmental stage. It's not like any of this is new information, either -- Lennart Nilsson did an amazing photo series called "Drama of Life Before Birth" back in 1965 which I think is one of the most powerful visual depictions of pregnancy ever. (The "blob of cells" rhetoric is often accompanied by a picture of the rather blobular-looking placenta like the one on the right side of page 6, rather than showing the obviously human picture of the fetus from the left side of page 6. It's appallingly dishonest.)

Let me throw this in the mix. Why do women even need a abortion? Didn't we have a discussion last summer about the War on Women and their right to contraception? If contraception is readily available I'm not sure why we have to talk about the merits of abortions. Whats the old saw? A ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Woodchip, no contraception is 100% effective and human beings are fallible. Also, some pregnancies are intentional, but dependent on conditions that might change due to no one's fault after someone gets pregnant. Let's not forget pregnancy from rape, which is a pretty big problem. Freedom to end or continue a pregnancy needs to be available.

Lothar makes a pretty solid point, I mean what would be the point of saving a blob of flesh anyway?

And the way the trajectory of health technology costs are rising I can see this thing costing thousands by the time the technology ripens.

So who pays the price to bring a blob of flesh to term…the taxpayer…the person that got rid of the blob of flesh…

Or I can see something like this: “For a mere 100 grand you can save a blob of flesh”.

Call me a cynic (and you would be right) but I don’t see technology fixing what is basically a social issue, it’s possible…but not likely.

.............................................

5 things wrong with the idea that children are gifts…

1. The idea is just a repackage of an old religious belief.
2. The idea that the future of humanity is beholden to the generosity of females. (when we all know that reproduction is something life is driven to, and has nothing to do with generosity.)
3. The female realizes she has no legal compulsion to gift anybody, and takes the child and leaves the state.
4. The male realizes he has no legal compulsion to accept any gift and tells the mother to piss off.
5. The male takes the “gift” and leaves the state with it…well it’s a gift right.

Don’t mind me, I’m just doing what I enjoy the most here. (picking holes in dumb logic)

vision wrote:I agree, but rather than waste time and resources arguing about our **** social compromise I prefer to accept it and promote a different kind of solution. I firmly believe that by the end of this century the technology will exist to save a life from the time a woman first realizes she is pregnant.

I'm not okay with just accepting it and moving on, because I think it's important to speak out for those who can't. I don't have aspirations of conquering to world over it, but I do hope to convince some people. (Plus, I enjoy debate.)

Along the lines of Lothar and Spidey - suppose the technology did exist to raise a child from conception outside of a natural womb, and suppose it had equivalent success rates to natural wombs... but came at a very high cost. (I think the very high cost is a reasonable assumption, equivalent success rates would probably be quite a technological feat) How would you approach the issue then? Would it change your support of abortions? Would you support taxpayer funding for it? Would you make abortions illegal? If legal, would you ban taxpayer funding for abortions?

snoopy wrote:How would you approach the issue then?

All these questions need to be part of the debate as medical science advances. As I said earlier in this thread, the technological change will out-pace the social change, so raising awareness (of what I believe to be inevitable) is good.

I don't see any reason for abortions to ever be illegal. I want to make them a non-issue by making them extremely rare. As for who pays the bill, currently that is the domain of market forces, and costs will change as the availability of new technology changes -- expensive at first, then cheaper later (most likely). Another consideration, there seems to be a lot of people who don't want dead babies, but will they pay for live ones? Only time will tell.

In addition to fantastical things like artificial wombs, let's also not forget to research different types of birth control. On the horizon is us learning how to switch on and off our ability to reproduce sexually. This might be a more practical, cheaper, and proactive solution than saving unwanted fetuses. Turning on and of my ability to reproduce would have saved me a few arguments with my ex after I got a vasectomy -- she changed her mind about kids when it was too late.

There is not a whole lot of imagination in the abortion debate. Let's spice it up with novel solutions to work towards because our culture isn't likely to change anytime soon.

And as part of making it a non-issue, we should start (or at least make it a priority) by removing the clause(s) in the tax code that enable people to birth kids as a way to make money.