Roe v. Wade: 42 Years in the Past

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]Perlenbacher15 wrote:
The scientific community would instead infer that consciousness requires a brain and good and evil is relative. Removing cells that have not gained consciousness from the host those cells need to continue existing is as much murder as wanking into a cleanex is.
[/quote]

You are mixing science with ethics in a way that isn’t going to help your case. You are correct that the actual ethical question is when to recognize legal “personhood,” but you are going to get your ass handed to you if you confuse that with when science identifies an organism as a “human,” for example. When “life begins” doesn’t answer the question either. Science does not answer ethical questions in this debate in the way you want it to and you might consider that your arguments need refining and not simply write these guys off as crazy “zealots.” If you do simply write them off, you are doing both sides of the debate a disservice. [/quote]

Of course, however the point is the religious people won’t acknowledge their ethical stance on the subject is a social construct, just like mine in.

I am of the opinion that the least amount of abortions the better, but that is because I support a social construct that dictates that that is good, however there is no scientific rationale to that. I am a product of my cultural and ethnic background, that however holds no basis when it comes to the scientific reality of everything.

[quote]Perlenbacher15 wrote:
I just want to point out that the church claims that contraception and abortion are morally the same. [/quote]

That is really irrelevant for most of the posters here and a large portion of the anti-abortion crowd. I could care less what the church (I’m assuming catholic church here) thinks or says.

[quote]
killing the sperm and thus its chance to reach an egg is just as logically follows the pro life arguement that if you don’t abort a fetus it becomes a person. [/quote]

Again, irrelevant. Sperm are cells with one persons DNA it is not a separate person. My guess would be the “church” is against contraception for other reasons.

Bringing up contraception is irrelevant to abortion. It’s a completely separate topic.

Very few people actually care what the Pope said 50 years ago about contraception.

You should take some time to learn who you are posting with. For example, countingbeans is not religious.

And now we’re talking about flat earth… I’m done.

[quote]pabergin wrote:
Since when is a human not a person? [/quote]

Since it starts as a tadpole. Try and keep up man…

/sarcasm

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Perlenbacher15 wrote:
Your assertion that removing cells that lack consciousness from a host whose body is nescessary for the cells to continue living is the same as shaking a conscious child who can survive outside the womb is so silly. [/quote]

A 1 year old can not survive outside the womb without a, “host,” period.

How is that silly? Why does the location of a person and or a very small variation in time (months) make such a paramount difference in your opinion? [/quote]

Because a woman can have a baby and it can live outside the womb, obviously it needs to be fed but that is not the point, the point is the ability to live outside. A fetus can not live outside the womb period. It relies on biological parasitism (not a negative connotation) to derive nutrients and just to live, expulsion from the womans body would mean it could not survive.

[quote]pabergin wrote:
Since when is a human not a person? [/quote]

Since the common law developed, at least.

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
And now we’re talking about flat earth… I’m done. [/quote]

My point was that the poster who claimed to be a religious right wing guy was complaining that religious right wing people are mocked as scientifically illiterate flat earthers, however the bible and the people who believe in it argue against basic scientific facts such as evolution, their book has some pretty questionable things to say about earth being flat.

Why would I think someone who denies evolution and believes in the bible and that a woman was created from the rib of a man has any legitimacy to argue about science? If they believe the story of creation in the bible and deny evolution then how can I take their position on abortion seriously?

It was not aimed at pro life people in general.

“Words, words, words.” Interesting what you can do with them.

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

For that matter, prove when consciousness begins (please use science). “Consciousness requires a brain,” does a fetus not have a brain? [/quote]

More difficult than you might imagine, as one’s first step is in determining where a “fetus” begins.

The union of sperm and egg is called a zygote. It is a single living human cell, floating in the murk of the fallopian tube, with only a thirty percent chance of ever implanting in the uterine wall.

That’s right. Life begins at conception, and seventy percent of those babies DIE without their mothers ever being aware.

Between conception and implantation, the cell divides and redivides, forming what is variously called a blastula, a blastocyte or a blastosphere. It will not be referred to as an embryo until it implants itself in the wall of the uterus.

Still, it is not out of the woods, so to speak. Even if an embryo implants on the uterine wall it still nearly a fifty percent chance of spontaneously aborting, meaning that up to fifty babies out of a hundred will end up being mistaken for a late–but unusually heavy–menstrual flow.

If an embryo has managed to hang on for a month, its odds of survival now go up to 75%. It is still not considered a fetus, and will not be for another four or five weeks, until the various differentiated cells in its body become functioning systems.

So at around week eight or nine following conception (not all embryos develop at the same rate), we now have a fetus. Is it alive? Of course. Has been from day one. Is it human? Well, duh. Of course it is. It’s not a fish, and it’s not a bird. Every cell in its body will be undeniably human. Is it conscious? Actually, no. Consciousness requires not just a brain (cockroaches have brains) but a cerebrum, which our 11-week old fetus is nowhere near having.

Specifically, it needs a physical substrate of highly differentiated and interconnected nerve cells, called the thalamo-cortical complex, which begins to be in place between the 24th and 28th week after conception. Roughly two months later, synchrony of the electroencephalographic (EEG) rhythm across both cortical hemispheres signals the onset of global neuronal integration. Thus, many of the circuit elements necessary for consciousness are in place by the third trimester. Is the fetus now conscious? Actually, no. It is asleep, in deep REM, and won’t wake up until it’s born.

Hope that answered your question. :slight_smile:

[quote]Perlenbacher15 wrote:

I will exit this thread now because I am only on the forum for workout advise and to keep a log, I merely popped in this thread and gave an opinion but some people are arguing so emotionally it is clearly not going to be worth trying to meaningfully engage with people who have unwavering stances based on faith.

[/quote]

lmao, says we argue based on faith, can’t back up a single claim of his own with science.

hilarious

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

For that matter, prove when consciousness begins (please use science). “Consciousness requires a brain,” does a fetus not have a brain? [/quote]

More difficult than you might imagine, as one’s first step is in determining where a “fetus” begins.

The union of sperm and egg is called a zygote. It is a single living human cell, floating in the murk of the fallopian tube, with only a thirty percent chance of ever implanting in the uterine wall.

That’s right. Life begins at conception, and seventy percent of those babies DIE without their mothers ever being aware.

Between conception and implantation, the cell divides and redivides, forming what is variously called a blastula, a blastocyte or a blastosphere. It will not be referred to as an embryo until it implants itself in the wall of the uterus.

Still, it is not out of the woods, so to speak. Even if an embryo implants on the uterine wall it still nearly a fifty percent chance of spontaneously aborting, meaning that up to fifty babies out of a hundred will end up being mistaken for a late–but unusually heavy–menstrual flow.

If an embryo has managed to hang on for a month, its odds of survival now go up to 75%. It is still not considered a fetus, and will not be for another seven or eight weeks, until the various differentiated cells in its body become functioning systems.

So at around week eleven or twelve following conception (not all embryos develop at the same rate), we now have a fetus. Is it alive? Of course. Has been from day one. Is it human? Well, duh. Of course it is. It’s not a fish, and it’s not a bird. Every cell in its body will be undeniably human. Is it conscious? Actually, no. Consciousness requires not just a brain (cockroaches have brains) but a cerebrum, which our 11-week old fetus is nowhere near having.

Specifically, it needs a physical substrate of highly differentiated and interconnected nerve cells, called the thalamo-cortical complex, which begins to be in place between the 24th and 28th week after conception. Roughly two months later, synchrony of the electroencephalographic (EEG) rhythm across both cortical hemispheres signals the onset of global neuronal integration. Thus, many of the circuit elements necessary for consciousness are in place by the third trimester. Is the fetus now conscious? Actually, no. It is asleep, in deep REM, and won’t wake up until it’s born.

Hope that answered your question. :slight_smile:

[/quote]

So, when does science tell us that the Zygote acquires full legal rights of personhood?

[quote]Perlenbacher15 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

Provide a scientific proof that the embryonic or fetal phase of human life renders that life, not human.[/quote]

But… Pat… You believe in God and are pro-life… According to this thread your anti science…

;)[/quote]

Yup, the same cliches always get repeated. We God believers are by default dumb flat-earthers.[/quote]

Biblical flat Earth claims must be addressed because many biblical literalists claim the Bible disproves evolution and other scientific theories prima facie. Since there is no real debate about the shape of the Earth, these passages call biblical literalism into question.
In numerous passages, the Bible claims that the earth is flat and/or rectangular. Whether or not the Bible “really” says this is often debated â?? but if the Bible was written by people who lived in societies who were unaware that the Earth is a more-or-less spherical object which orbits the Sun then we would expect this ignorance to be reflected in their writings.

Flat Earth claims
"Daniel 4:10-11. In Daniel, the king â??saw a tree of great height at the centre of the earthâ?¦ reaching with its top to the sky and visible to the earth’s farthest bounds.â?? Only with a flat Earth could a tall tree be visible from “the Earth’s farthest bounds,” â?? this is impossible on a spherical earth.

Theological rebuttal: The strength of Daniel 4:10-11 as an argument for a flat Earth is considerably reduced by the fact that this part of the Book of Daniel recounts a dream experienced by the Persian king during a fit of madness. Thus, it does not necessarily refer to an actually existing tree or make any statements about real cosmology. This fact would seem to indicate that biblical literalists do not even know how to read the Bible properly. It also ignores that the New Testament claims that the Devil showed Jesus the entire world from the top of a mountain, which would not be possible on a spherical Earth:

Matthew 4:8: “Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world”

Luke 4:5: “And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, shewed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time.”

Theological rebuttal again: The strength of using Matthew and Luke as flat Earth claims is reduced by the fact that “Kingdom” is a human construct. If you classify all the places on Earth you can’t see from that particular location as “Not Kingdoms” such as barbaric tribes and non-monarchies, It can be fitted within that description. However, How the devil knows those places are not ruled by Kings (Again, the concept of “King” is also a human concept) is not exactly clear.

Isaiah 40:22: “He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in.”

Indeed, this quote is used to prove that Bible claims that the Earth is spherical. Some scholars point out that Isaiah never uses the Modern Hebrew word for sphere Kadur anywhere. It is not clear whether this is relevant, seeing as the interpretation of the word Kadur in the bible is disputed ‘Four Corners’ Flat Earth claims

Isaiah 11:12 “And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.”

Revelation 7:1 “And after these things I saw four angels standing on four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree.”

As with the Daniel quote, this cannot be taken literally; the events described in Revelation are a series of visions, rather than an accurate description of the world. Another interpretation of this verse is that four corners of the earth don’t refer to literal four corners but to cardinal directions, which is further supported by the description of the four winds which are commonly referenced by their cardinal direction.

It is obvious, that no scholars admit whether the Bible suggested the spherical earth. But there have been Christians and Muslims who still believe that Earth is actually flat, like Wilbur Glenn Voliva, who even offered $5000 as a prize for anyone who can prove that earth is not Flat. Although his predictions about Earth ending in 1923, 1927, 1930, and 1935 failed too.

Teaching about spherical Earth was banned in the schools of Zion, Illinois, at that time.
Mohammed Yusuf, founder of terrorist group Boko Haram stated that Theory of Evolution as well as spherical Earth teachings should be rejected because they are against Islam.
In a 2007’s TV debate, an Iraqi Astronomer, Fadhel Al-Said tried hard to push the ideas that the Earth is flat and Qur’anic verses also supports that the Sun (also flat) is much smaller than Earth and revolves around it.

Former President of the United States, Jimmy Carter, mentioned flat-earthers in passing (though he was actually speaking against mandatory teaching of creation science):
â??â??There can be no incompatibility between Christian faith and proven facts concerning geology, biology, and astronomy. There is no need to teach that stars can fall out of the sky and land on a flat Earth in order to defend our religious faith.[/quote]

Claims to follow science, ignores requests for scientific documentation for claims, and instead posts about religion and “flat earth”…

beyond comedy.

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

So, when does science tell us that the Zygote acquires full legal rights of personhood? [/quote]

I love you man. Like real, unadulterated e-love.

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

So, when does science tell us that the Zygote acquires full legal rights of personhood? [/quote]

Science doesn’t tell us about “rights” which are an ethical and legal construct.

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

That’s right. Life begins at conception, and seventy percent of those babies DIE without their mothers ever being aware.

[/quote]

Funny, and informative post.

I do wish I had time to write an op-ed about the absurdity of this here that I’ve quoted, when compared to the {rather astonishing given the “Science”) rate of “unwanted” pregnancies.

My rant would have nothing to do with abortion, but rather philosophy I guess. It’s just one of life’s crazy, crazy things.

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

So, when does science tell us that the Zygote acquires full legal rights of personhood? [/quote]

Science doesn’t tell us about “rights” which are an ethical and legal construct.[/quote]

Gold star.

In Virginia, on the other hand, it appears that Zygotes are already considered “persons”.

Women in Virginia will have to be very, very careful not to have any miscarriages in that state.

One wonders whether the Sheriff’s department will be examining maxi-pads and tampons for evidence of manslaughter.

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

So, when does science tell us that the Zygote acquires full legal rights of personhood? [/quote]

Science doesn’t tell us about “rights” which are an ethical and legal construct.[/quote]

Exactly.

[quote]Perlenbacher15 wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]Perlenbacher15 wrote:
Why is it the people most adamant about outlawing abortion are also the most adamant about cutting social services to help the little sprogs when they finally drop out of the womb?

I guess jesus only casts his magical blessings for those under a year old. Then his followers become ardent social darwinists.[/quote]

Perhaps you’d like to take a swing at making an argument that isn’t a raging straw man?[/quote]

How is what I said an informal fallacy? Almost all pro life people are right wing, they also happen to be mainly religious. These same people clearly overwhelmingly vote for people who are for scalling back or removing social services.

You don’t think this is true?[/quote]

For a million reasons that is a strawman.

  1. you committed a major informal fallacy precisely BECAUSE you are generalizing. It is deductively invalid, therefore it is a fallacy. It is not enough to say “this is true in majority, therefore it is true”. That’s patently invalid and you should know better.

  2. There are plenty of pro-life advocates that are not Christian, and plenty more that are not even religious. sub point a) you equate ‘religious’ with ‘Christian’, which is patently inaccurate, and sub point b) you completely ignore the non-religious pro-life advocates, which are substantial.

  3. the pro-life position does not depend on religion for many of its arguments, which you ignore. Some yes, not all.

  4. Beans pointed out some more–being born to poor parents does not justify murder. You have to show that, you cannot assume that, because it is a premise for your very shitty “argument”

  5. you very handily assume that ‘voting for rolling back social services’ is equivalent to ‘murder’ because you implicitly equate them, even though you are not aware you are doing this. Not only do you have to prove this, it is also prima facie FUCKING ABSURD. I’m not going to spend more time on point 5 because it doesn’t deserve to be dignified. You should have known better.