Abortion - An Issue of Rights, Morals, and Sensibility

[CivilLiberty]

There have been many theories in science that simply were wrong even though they were believed to be correct by scientists in the past. To simply say that they weren't scientists isn't an argument it is simply denial. We say something and you say, "no it isn't" but it still doesn't make your assertion true.

What about Ptolemy's Geocentricity? It was proven to be untrue but Ptolemy was certainly a scientist and was not basing his theory in Faith but in observable phenomena.

The early greeks were not practicing science as I have described the beginning of science, and the modern meaning of the term, with Bacon et all in several posts here. And I'll state one more time that observations alone do not constitute science.



Andy

 

[no1tovote4]

Science is the process by which we create and test theories. Many theories have been created and then disproven through evidence, many have survived but most certainly science is a process and not fact just a way to attempt to discover actual facts.

It is also Knowledge, especially that gained from experience according to the Dictionary. Therefore beliefs based on observations in your experience are science as well as what you are attempting to define narrowly.

This is a semantics issue only.

 

[no1tovote4]

The early greeks were not practicing science as I have described the beginning of science, and the modern meaning of the term, with Bacon et all in several posts here. And I'll state one more time that observations alone do not constitute science.



Andy

But observation, identification, description, experimental investigation do. Ptolemy created a Theory and tested through experimental investigation and found nothing in his time to disprove his Theory. Later the theory was proven to be false. Such things happen often in the history of science. To say that creating and testing theory isn't science is simply denying the actual definition of the word or the work that was actually done by those scientists that preceded us. Without them much of what we know would still be based in Faith instead of observable phenomena and testing of Theory.

 

[dilloduck]

It's been a great discussion regarding science etc but the abortion ruling passed down by SCOTUS had nothing to do with science and I doubt that science will have anything with the next challenge to it. It's a womens' rights issue and that is what will have to be defined or redefined.

 

[CivilLiberty]

It's been a great discussion regarding science etc but the abortion ruling passed down by SCOTUS had nothing to do with science and I doubt that science will have anything with the next challenge to it. It's a womens' rights issue and that is what will have to be defined or redefined.

Science IS part of it as the SCOTUS ruled that viability is part of the equation (states can prohibit at viability).

A

 

[no1tovote4]

Science IS part of it as the SCOTUS ruled that viability is part of the equation (states can prohibit at viability).

A

States cannot prohibit at viability at least not according to Doe v. Bolton. Abortion is legal until the end of Pregnancy. The Roe v. Wade ruling and the Doe ruling were announced at the same time. Roe gained prominence as the newspapers at the time believed more people could swallow the decision if it was only legal during the first trimester, however Doe v. Bolton allows abortion through the third Trimester.

And science was only PART of the decision. All sides must be answered in order to find middle ground. To think that science will answer the question to everybody's satisfaction is once again ignoring reality. Debating the science of the question is nice for a debate, but working without the reality of peoples beliefs in making the decision is simply attempting to solve a problem without first finding the root cause of the issue.

 

[Mr. P]

....

And science was only PART of the decision. All sides must be answered in order to find middle ground. To think that science will answer the question to everybody's satisfaction is once again ignoring reality. Debating the science of the question is nice for a debate, but working without the reality of peoples beliefs in making the decision is simply attempting to solve a problem without first finding the root cause of the issue.

And the earth is flat, ya know? I seem to recall a time that that was the predominate "Belief".

 

[CivilLiberty]

And the earth is flat, ya know? I seem to recall a time that that was the predominate "Belief".

Yes, it was a "belief" and was not "science".


A

 

[no1tovote4]

And the earth is flat, ya know? I seem to recall a time that that was the predominate "Belief".

Beliefs are what give us our rights. They are based on the belief that all men were created equal. To assume that beliefs have no place in the argument is simply incorrect.

 

[no1tovote4]

Yes, it was a "belief" and was not "science".


A

It was disproven through science, it was a Theory like any other. People would hold arguments and perform experiments until it was proven the Theory was untrue, until then many held the belief in the theory. Science is a process, it is not the Theories themselves but the process of attempting to prove or disprove the Theory.

To say a belief isn't science is correct, but to say the belief was not first founded in science is incorrect.

 

[Mr. P]

Yes, it was a "belief" and was not "science".


A

That was my point..

 

[no1tovote4]

That was my point..

My point is science is a tool which people use to either prove or disprove Theories they may or may not believe in, it is not a set of beliefs in and of itself. To assume that science has all the answers is to deny science itself which only asks questions.

 

[Mr. P]

Beliefs are what give us our rights. They are based on the belief that all men were created equal. To assume that beliefs have no place in the argument is simply incorrect.

And I believe, that I should not have the right to infringe on your rights. Belief surely has it's place
as such, it's a belief, but not always scientific fact. Belief, IMO, is nothing more than, he said she said. Unless of course we are talking provable fact, science.

This Science vs Belief, is exactly why this debate is useless...
If both sides cannot place their argument on the table for evaluation, their is no debate just argument.
"I believe", without proof on the table, cannot stand up to Scientific or any other proof.
The earth is flat! And the moon is made of green cheese!

 

[no1tovote4]

This Science vs Belief, is exactly why this debate is useless...
If both sides cannot place their argument on the table for evaluation, their is no debate just argument.
"I believe", without proof on the table, cannot stand up to Scientific or any other proof.
The earth is flat! And the moon is made of green cheese!

Science as I said is the process with which we prove or disprove our beliefs and theories. There is no other measure other than current belief whether based in science or faith with which to judge. Since there are many theories as shown in this thread itself in science we need to choose where to err.

Either we err on the side of minimal loss of life on the basis of a most fundamental right of life, or we err on the side of the right of another to choose to end human life for their own convenience and comfort or the right to have a comfortable life. Which is more moral? Based on one of the theories it would be more moral to allow the loss of life for comfort because the life is not yet human, based on another theory the right to life is the most fundamental life and applies to all human life including the zygote and therefore the more moral choice would be the opposite.


To create a middle ground we could allow the mother to have reproductive rights and choose to end a pregnancy but treat the fetus as a patient and work to keep them alive. Thus the right to life and the right to quality of life are both observed. Admittedly at the beginning we would lose many little patients, but as we got better at it and with new advances we could save many of those lives, but the morality of ending the life purposely and with the sole intent to do so would be removed while allowing for the Rights of the mother to also be observed.

When the advancements produced good results we could have true reproductive choices in the future allowing women to choose to carry the child or to have the child come to term ex utero. Thus allowing women the same benefit as the man. As well as not having to face the moral quandary of using a deliberately killed human life to advance stem cell research thus allowing, if permitted by the parent, those cells to advance another research upon their death at the early stages of this particular policy.

I am still in the idea stage of this, but to me it is better than abortion by far and can, in time, save the lives of those children without denying the beliefs of either side.

 

[dilloduck]

And I believe, that I should not have the right to infringe on your rights. Belief surely has it's place
as such, it's a belief, but not always scientific fact. Belief, IMO, is nothing more than, he said she said. Unless of course we are talking provable fact, science.

This Science vs Belief, is exactly why this debate is useless...
If both sides cannot place their argument on the table for evaluation, their is no debate just argument.
"I believe", without proof on the table, cannot stand up to Scientific or any other proof.
The earth is flat! And the moon is made of green cheese!

Until we "know" everything we will spend most of our lives relying on things like hypothesis, beliefs, experience and faith. That is the simple reality---Until science can do something about it, I must have faith that the other car coming down the road won't swerve and hit me. There are a hell of a lot unknowns out there that are completely out of our control. We usually just deny they exist so we feel secure and don't panic.

 

[musicman]

And I believe, that I should not have the right to infringe on your rights. Belief surely has it's place
as such, it's a belief, but not always scientific fact. Belief, IMO, is nothing more than, he said she said. Unless of course we are talking provable fact, science.

This Science vs Belief, is exactly why this debate is useless...
If both sides cannot place their argument on the table for evaluation, their is no debate just argument.
"I believe", without proof on the table, cannot stand up to Scientific or any other proof.
The earth is flat! And the moon is made of green cheese!

I've asked some of our board members a simple question - at least ten times on two recent threads - and haven't gotten an answer.

You seem like a fair-minded guy, Mr. P. I'll ask you.

Can you say - with absolute, unerring certainty - at what point during pregnancy human life begins?





Me either.

That being the case - and the stakes being innocent human life and death - isn't it just prudent and decent - in the face of all belief, science, debate, and evaluation, to err on the side of life?

We know that the Earth is round and the moon isn't made of green cheese. But how are we to know the precise moment that human life begins? We can't. Humanity is going to have to go with it's gut on this one.

What does your gut tell you?