Abortion - An Issue of Rights, Morals, and Sensibility

[no1tovote4]

Hmmm. Where does one find this middle ground.

I believe there can be a middle ground that fills the canyon between "red" and "blue". I think abortion is the "hottest" of the hot button topics, and one of the most divisive.

Is the middle ground composed of spirituality? Religion? Science?

I avoid religion and spirituality because it is an unprovable belief, and laws should be made only on provable truths.

Our consciousness if provably housed in the cerebellum. Our consciousness is the thing that makes human life "more sacred" than other life. (I don't see anyone here up in arms about euthanizing stray cats and dogs for instance). With these two issues then, the embryo with no cerebellum development is not yet a "sacred" human life.

Regards


Andy

As I said before, the middle ground can lie in a place where the stated goal is not to kill unwanted offspring, but an attempt to save them.

 

[no1tovote4]

Our consciousness if provably housed in the cerebellum. Our consciousness is the thing that makes human life "more sacred" than other life. (I don't see anyone here up in arms about euthanizing stray cats and dogs for instance). With these two issues then, the embryo with no cerebellum development is not yet a "sacred" human life.

Andy

This is just as much a statement of Faith as any religious statement made in the argument.

I already stated that I oppose aborting dogs and cats. Euthanasia is a different subject as often people can make that choice for themselves, we can debate that one at a future period.

 

[CivilLiberty]

the egyptian bible ???

That was like a couple thousand years before Francis Bacon, not to mention Newton.

That Egyptian babylonian crap was NOT science. It was superstition, pure and simple.


Regards,

Andy

 

[CivilLiberty]

As I said before, the middle ground can lie in a place where the stated goal is not to kill unwanted offspring, but an attempt to save them.

If there were a way to extract and incubate in a test tube the embryo at 8 week to 3 months, maybe. And I'd probably support it as middle ground. It's far of science right now, though.

Have you ever read Brave New World?

 

[no1tovote4]

That was like a couple thousand years before Francis Bacon, not to mention Newton.

That Egyptian babylonian crap was NOT science. It was superstition, pure and simple.


Regards,

Andy

So the assumption here is that science based on incorrect assumptions is crap and not science? Shoot just over one century ago people believed that bleeding was good medical practice. This was an established scientific fact of the time. We now know that it rarely is a good thing to bleed somebody dying of pnuemonia, but at that time is was expected and you were a hack if you didn't. This didn't mean that they were not practicing science, just that they had a bad interpretation of observed facts.

Science works in fits and starts, assuming that established beliefs in science are perfect simply leads one to bad assumptions.

 

[no1tovote4]

If there were a way to extract and incubate in a test tube the embryo at 8 week to 3 months, maybe. And I'd probably support it as middle ground. It's far of science right now, though.

Have you ever read Brave New World?

Not yet.

However my point is the attempt to save the life rather than simply kill it would be far nobler than strictly adhering to the death of the offspring. Even if it is far off, it will come faster if we establish it as the goal rather than the exception.

As I said, what is your objection? At this time the embryos would die, but that was the goal of the abortion to begin with. Over time we will find ways to help these little patients to gain their true potential and at the same time will be perfecting ways that women could have true reproductive freedom.

 

[CivilLiberty]

So the assumption here is that science based on incorrect assumptions is crap and not science? Shoot just over one century ago people believed that bleeding was good medical practice. This was an established scientific fact of the time. We now know that it rarely is a good thing to bleed somebody dying of pnuemonia, but at that time is was expected and you were a hack if you didn't. This didn't mean that they were not practicing science, just that they had a bad interpretation of observed facts.

Science works in fits and starts, assuming that established beliefs in science are perfect simply leads one to bad assumptions.

No, bloodletting began in prehistoric times, and was rooted in magic and religion, not science. It's use was one of thousands of years of superstition. Medical SCIENCE put an end to this practice over a hundred years ago.


Regards

Andy

 

[no1tovote4]

No, bloodletting began in prehistoric times, and was rooted in magic and religion, not science. It's use was one of thousands of years of superstition. Medical SCIENCE put an end to this practice over a hundred years ago.


Regards

Andy

Evidence points to the contrary.

http://www.holistichealthtopics.com/HMG/quack.html
(look at the bibliography before you discount the source)

In the 18th and 19th centuries, mainstream scientific medicine was characterised by the practice of bloodletting ( 12a, 57, 58, 59, 88a ). This was referred to as the age of "heroic medicine" ( 57, 58 ). Withdrawal of the patient's blood by whatever means, including venesection and the use of leeches ( 57, 58 ), was the accepted scientific treatment for all manner of illnesses, including, fever, pain, muscle spasms, congestion, inflammation, and mental disease ( 57, 58, 59 ). Heroic medicine also utilised the scientific practices of cupping, blistering, purging and sweating in an attempt to restore health ( 57, 58 ). The practice of blistering was performed by deliberately giving the patient a second degree burn and then draining the resulting sore (57, 58 ). Purging, which was done to cleanse the body of toxins or "irritants" ( 57 ), was performed by giving the patient as large a dose "as the patient will bear" ( 57 ) of mercuric chloride which of course subsequently caused mercury poisoning ( 57 ). Although patients objected to bloodletting because of "fear" ( 58 ), this practice of scientific medicine continued for "centuries" ( 55 ) before it was finally abandoned.

This was not based in religious practices according to written history and texts for medical practices of the time. It was taught as science and backed with incorrect observations.

 

[CivilLiberty]

This was not based in religious practices according to written history and texts for medical practices of the time.

This is because many medical practices of the time were not based in science but in superstition. "Heroic" medicine was not science.

A

 

[no1tovote4]

This is because many medical practices of the time were not based in science but in superstition. "Heroic" medicine was not science.

A

Only according to you assertion, not from historical reference. "Heroic" medicine began 250 years ago or so, not from established religious practices as you asserted.

 

[Gem]

Civil,

I am afraid that you are losing this argument as well. The history of science is riddled with examples of things that were "simple, observable fact" right up until they were disproven.

Read the testimony of doctors who supported Roe v. Wade and now have come forward to say that they never would have supported the idea had they known then what scientific advancements have shown them about fetal development today.

Scientific "fact" is something that stretches and changes with discovery...with that in mind the decision to end life...even if its really tiny...should be viewed with hesitation and restraint...not as a right to be practiced because you forgot to take your birth control pills or you broke up with your girlfriend and she decided she didn't want your kid afterall.

 

[CivilLiberty]

Civil,
I am afraid that you are losing this argument as well. The history of science is riddled with examples of things that were "simple, observable fact" right up until they were disproven.

Here's where you guys are missing it: Science is NOT a "simple, observable fact".

Francis Bacon, often considered the father of modern science, along with Galileo and followed closely by Newton developed deductive reasoning and the scientific method. Which is NOT "simple, observable facts".

For instance, before Bacon, Newton, and Galileo, there was the widely held "fact" put forth by Aristotle based on a "simple observable fact" that lighter things fall slower than heavier things.

This is false, and was disproved by Galileo using SCIENCE. Aristotle's observation was NOT SCIENCE.

To claim that it is reveals a misunderstanding of the meaning of SCIENCE.



Regards,


Andy

 

[Gem]

Civil,

I understand what you are saying...however, it is an argument of semantics. My choice of words, "simple, observable fact" does not change that the history of science is full of things that were accepted BY scientists until they were disproven.

You would rather err on the side of considering something not worth saving until the last possible moment....and considering that scientific discoveries have continually shown that moment to be earlier and earlier than previously thought...most people here think that perhaps we should consider erring earlier than later.

 

[Mr. P]

Civil,....
most people here think that perhaps we should consider erring earlier than later.

I don't think so Gem. IMO, I think 'most' people here simply want abortion banned period, science be Damned.

 

[musicman]

Dilloduck commented on Civil Liberty's "depressing belief that 'science' is all there is and spirituality is merely a figment of man's imagination."

Civil Liberty replied, "Prove to me otherwise."

On turn-of-the-twentieth-century British conservative Arthur Balfour:


"The substance of Balfour's four philosophical volumes... is nearly akin to Pascal's maxim that the Heart has reason which the Reason knows not. Balfour is...acutely conscious that the postulates of modern science do not rest upon absolute knowledge, but are derived from sources similar to those of religious conviction. If only the data of physical researches and sensory evidence be allowed by thinking men, then we must labor forever in the agonies of doubt. Balfour agrees with Francis Bacon...that he who begins in doubt may end in certainty. A higher skepticism is preparation for wisdom - not the narrow destructive skepticism of the egoist, deliberately seeking unbelief, but instead an intellectual recognition of the want of evidence. Skepticism need not destroy belief; it may serve, on the contrary, to expose the unjustifiable complacency of unbelievers."

"...Men who demand material and measurable evidence of the transcendent ask what is not in nature; they endeavor to solve mysteries simply by denying that mysteries exist... Religion and science are neither inimical nor exclusive, properly understood; both must rely upon intuitions and intimations beyond the simple evidence of the senses; and men who endeavor to reduce religion to matter-of-fact morality, or elevate science to the estate of a dogmatic creed, have shut their eyes to the sources of wisdom that distinguish civilized men from primitive beings."

From "The Conservative Mind from Burke to Eliot", by Russel Kirk

 

[CivilLiberty]

Civil,
I understand what you are saying...however, it is an argument of semantics. My choice of words, "simple, observable fact" does not change that the history of science is full of things that were accepted BY scientists until they were disproven.

?!?!?!? Gem, sometimes...

Sigh.

If something is "accepted" by some "individuals" that does not make it science!

One of the concepts of modern science is that if we "don't know" then we say "we don't know". Or if we're close to knowing, but there are branch theories that make a certain level of uncertainty, then those branch theories are considered until unified or supplanted.

For instance with string theory, there were 5 separate competing theories, until it was discovered that all 5 theories were in fact examinations of the same unifying theory from 5 alternate perspectives.

In another example, before we discovered planets around other stars, we said "there could be, but there's no proof". Now we have discovered the proof, so now we can say that at least some other stars have planets around them.

On the other hand, there was never any scientific study done that showed through scientific method that "blood letting" was beneficial. Blood letting originated in pre-historic times, and was an "ingrained" aspect of human society, that SCIENCE laid to rest.

Regards,


Andy

 

[CivilLiberty]

Kinda gets you thinking what CL values in life. His imagination apparently suck!

I don't think a belief in science is depressing at all, #1, and #2, can you prove that god/religion or spirituality is nothing more than a figment of man's ego?


"God told me to tell you all that he doesn't exist!"

Heh.

Andy

 

[musicman]

I don't think a belief in science is depressing at all, #1, and #2, can you prove that god/religion or spirituality is nothing more than a figment of man's ego?


"God told me to tell you all that he doesn't exist!"

Heh.

Andy

"...the narrow destructive skepticism of the egoist, deliberately seeking unbelief....".

Russell Kirk's words hold up rather well, don't they?

 

[CivilLiberty]

Well the devil made me do it, what can I tell ya? We all have different beliefs I guess and I would say that a lot here don't follow yours.

I never said a belief in science was depressing, in fact I think it's a great thing to believe in. Currently with my new science kit I am concocting a potion to blow up California!

Why no concoct one to make us secede? then we'll both be happy! And so will Arnold - he'll be President of California!


heh


A

 

[no1tovote4]

?!?!?!? Gem, sometimes...

Sigh.

If something is "accepted" by some "individuals" that does not make it science!

One of the concepts of modern science is that if we "don't know" then we say "we don't know". Or if we're close to knowing, but there are branch theories that make a certain level of uncertainty, then those branch theories are considered until unified or supplanted.

For instance with string theory, there were 5 separate competing theories, until it was discovered that all 5 theories were in fact examinations of the same unifying theory from 5 alternate perspectives.

In another example, before we discovered planets around other stars, we said "there could be, but there's no proof". Now we have discovered the proof, so now we can say that at least some other stars have planets around them.

On the other hand, there was never any scientific study done that showed through scientific method that "blood letting" was beneficial. Blood letting originated in pre-historic times, and was an "ingrained" aspect of human society, that SCIENCE laid to rest.

Regards,


Andy

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.