Rationalia Abortion Thread (A New Start)

[Seth]

Seth wrote:

But at no time does the Court suggest that the fetus is not living tissue of human origin that exists, which is the very definition of "human being."

It is certainly not the definition of "human being", otherwise a donated kidney being transported in an ice box would be a human being...

A fetus is not a kidney, therefore your analogy fails.

[Seth]

I said "crime against humanity". It's like a bad thing. Overpopulation etc. Science can be used to measure quality of life. More people less quality.

Wrong. Science can be used to measure physical phenomena, that's it. "Quality of life" is entirely subjective, immaterial, non-scientific and therefore cannot be so measured.

Besides, your statement is an iteration of the fallacious appeal to nature in which you suggest that it is somehow worse if there are more people. To the contrary, people are the most basic and fundamental producers of quality of life, and without enough of them, the quality of life diminishes.

Therefore, the social and philosophical (not scientific) question becomes "how many people does it take to produce and maintain the highest quality of life for humans that is theoretically possible?"

[JimC]

Seth wrote:

But at no time does the Court suggest that the fetus is not living tissue of human origin that exists, which is the very definition of "human being."

It is certainly not the definition of "human being", otherwise a donated kidney being transported in an ice box would be a human being...

A fetus is not a kidney, therefore your analogy fails.

As usual, you've missed the point; it was't an analogy, it was a direct, logical consequence of your definition. You were claiming that "the very definition of "human being."" is "living tissue of human origin that exists", which is clearly nonsense, as shown by my counter example; if your definition were true, then a living kidney outside the body would be a human being. None of this challenges, in itself, whether a fetus is or is not a human being, it simply demonstrates that the definition you used is patently absurd.

[surreptitious57]

On some American campuses female students make a digital recording of informed consent with the man they wish to have to sex with which is then stored in
a cloud where it cannot be tampered with in any way. This protects both parties and would invalidate any allegation of rape on the part of the woman. It has
been suggested that the woman could change her mind during the sex itself so claim rape. However if she has given informed consent in advance and there is
a record of it then presumably that record can over ride that. I think this is a good idea in principle but sadly it is not fool proof since third parties could rape
the woman or the man could have sex with the woman more than once or perform a different sex act to the one which was specified by informed consent. To
offset such scenarios would require not only consent but also video of the sex itself. Which would make it next to impossible for the man to take advantage of
the woman. And I would in theory be in favour of this for all sexual encounters between individuals that are not actually partners. I would also be in favour of
secret filming of sex acts where the man did not know he was being filmed since rape convictions would be easier to secure even if the man pleaded not guilty

[JimC]

Or a recording of the woman repeatedly screaming "Yes, yes, yes, oh god yes"...

[Seth]

Seth wrote:

But at no time does the Court suggest that the fetus is not living tissue of human origin that exists, which is the very definition of "human being."

It is certainly not the definition of "human being", otherwise a donated kidney being transported in an ice box would be a human being...

A fetus is not a kidney, therefore your analogy fails.

As usual, you've missed the point; it was't an analogy, it was a direct, logical consequence of your definition. You were claiming that "the very definition of "human being."" is "living tissue of human origin that exists", which is clearly nonsense, as shown by my counter example; if your definition were true, then a living kidney outside the body would be a human being. None of this challenges, in itself, whether a fetus is or is not a human being, it simply demonstrates that the definition you used is patently absurd.

Please excuse me for being imprecise again. Your pettifoggery is appreciated. Let me rephrase slightly: "But at no time does the Court suggest that the fetus is not living tissue of human origin that exists, thereby making the fetus the very definition of "human being."

As I've said before, the zygote is a unique new human being of human origin that is comprised of living tissue that has the unique natural property of being capable of developing into a fully-formed adult human being in time, something a kidney cannot do in its natural state.

The Court carefully avoided (I would say "evaded") the cleft stick you endure by being careful to couch its review of abortion through history in legal terms, not in scientific terms. The ancient concept of "life" beginning at "quickening" demonstrates only that at the time the understanding of the nature of human fetal development was primitive at best. We now know that the tissue involved is "alive" at all times and therefore "life" never really "begins" at all, it's merely a transfer of life from the sperm and egg to the new living being created at the formation of the zygote. Life does not begin during pregnancy, it is an ongoing characteristic of all living organisms, including human fetuses.

The Court's references to historical issues of "when does life begin?" are really nothing more than dicta in that nothing the Court has to say changes anything about the physical scientific nature of the fetus or the mother. The notions of when life begins used by other societies in other times are manifestations of ignorance and quite frankly religious belief and have nothing to do with science. They may have something to do with law only because the Supreme Court chose to evade it's responsibility to review the law based not on ancient law but upon the Constitution. It's denial of 14th Amendment rights to the fetus is based not on our laws, as expressed by our lawmakers, but rather it's based on resort to the ancient practices of cultures and societies that our Constitution overrules as a matter of law.

The primary object to, and flaw in Roe v. Wade is that the Court "found" a "right to privacy" in the "penumbra" of rights rather than doing its duty, which is to determine only if the regulation fits within the Constitution as written under the necessary judicial presumption that it is the legislature, not the courts, that make law and engage in the necessary debates and due consideration of the public policies necessary for the society.

Insofar as ancient law is concerned, it's clear (despite the Court's evasion) that the issue of abortion has always been one subject to legislative regulation, even as far back as ancient Greece. The question, from the historical perspective, has always been how much and what kind of regulation is appropriate, and as far back as Hippocrates doctors who took his Oath were explicitly swearing not to provide abortions or abortion-inducing drugs to patients. And while the Romans largely chose not to regulate abortion strictly, many other cultures, including our own ancestors, did so and did so with regularity and by imposing some harsh penalties for illegal abortions.

For the most part, over long periods of history, "quickening" was the metric used to determine if an abortion was unlawful or not, but this was merely based on the failure to understand the subtle organic processes at work before the fetus is actually able to move, which we now understand very well. You will find that throughout history pregnant women were labeled "with child" from the moment their pregnancy was perceptible, even though the child itself may not have been deemed to be a person worthy of respect for its life and rights until some relatively arbitrary time after formation of the zygote, such as the first time the mother admits to feeling the baby move. We know now that the fetus has brain activity long before it starts moving in the womb, which makes "quickening" an inappropriate test for the "beginning of life" because the fetus is clearly alive prior to that time.

This may all be relevant to the legal reasoning involved (although I disagree) but it is in no way relevant to the scientific facts involved, which plainly state that the zygote is a living human being under development. Any discussions about abortion must rationally accept this as a necessary factual pre-condition, otherwise any such discussion is an utter waste of time, just as much so as you all here might claim that having a discussion about miracles from God is an utter waste of time because there is no foundational agreement about whether or not miracles can or do occur.

It's remarkable to see how blind folks here are to that fundamental intellectual failure. The only way to claim that a fetus is not a living human being is to deny that it's a) not human; or b) not alive, both of which are patently and obviously and provably scientifically untrue.

I've already explained several times exactly why pro-abortionists persist in this mendacious and evasive cognitive disconnect.

[Seth]

On some American campuses female students make a digital recording of informed consent with the man they wish to have to sex with which is then stored in
a cloud where it cannot be tampered with in any way. This protects both parties and would invalidate any allegation of rape on the part of the woman.

I'm all for that. Indeed I'd strongly recommend that ANY male seeking to have sex with ANYONE, including their spouse, shoot a cell-phone video of that consent, as a precaution.

It has
been suggested that the woman could change her mind during the sex itself so claim rape. However if she has given informed consent in advance and there is
a record of it then presumably that record can over ride that.

Except that you will find that feminists insist that "no means no" and that the consent may be withdrawn at any time, including in the middle of ejaculation, and that continuing to ejaculate and failing to instantly remove one's penis is considered to be "rape" by such...cunts.

I think this is a good idea in principle but sadly it is not fool proof since third parties could rape
the woman or the man could have sex with the woman more than once or perform a different sex act to the one which was specified by informed consent. To
offset such scenarios would require not only consent but also video of the sex itself. Which would make it next to impossible for the man to take advantage of
the woman. And I would in theory be in favour of this for all sexual encounters between individuals that are not actually partners. I would also be in favour of
secret filming of sex acts where the man did not know he was being filmed since rape convictions would be easier to secure even if the man pleaded not guilty

As long as its legal for the man to do the same thing, I'm fine with that, and it is in many places perfectly legal to do so...or was, right up until some twat complained about being secretly videotaped doing the nasty and legislatures started invoking a "reasonable expectation of privacy" mandate on consensual sex.

Personally, I'd have a business card and a placard in my room stating "All activities in this space are subject to audio and video recording without notice, and entry to these premises acts as irrevocable permission for such recording and a permanent and irrevocable transfer of copyrights to all such recordings to the recording party with no compensation due for any reason whatsoever."

If you don't want to be videotaped making your O-face, don't fuck other people. Pretty simple, really.

[surreptitious57]

The general view among gynaecologists over here is that the current twenty four week limit is the most ideal and consequently there is
no requirement at this point in time to have it changed. Though no law is absolute and if new scientific knowledge is acquired that may
require a change in law then one may be debated and even acted upon. And it should be the medical professionals that legislators listen
to because they can speak from a position of knowledge with complete objectivity. Unlike either pro or anti abortionists who speak from
a position of emotion so are totally non objective. And emotional reasoning is not and should never be the basis on which any law is made

[Tero]

I said "crime against humanity". It's like a bad thing. Overpopulation etc. Science can be used to measure quality of life. More people less quality.

Wrong. Science can be used to measure physical phenomena, that's it. "Quality of life" is entirely subjective, immaterial, non-scientific and therefore cannot be so measured.

Besides, your statement is an iteration of the fallacious appeal to nature in which you suggest that it is somehow worse if there are more people. To the contrary, people are the most basic and fundamental producers of quality of life, and without enough of them, the quality of life diminishes.

Therefore, the social and philosophical (not scientific) question becomes "how many people does it take to produce and maintain the highest quality of life for humans that is theoretically possible?"

It's math, stupid! We can only grow so much food. Quality is measured in square feet per dwelling, access to clean water, electricity etc.

[Tero]

Psst, Seth! Science is...socialim. Whacko libertarianism, 2nd amendment etc are gut reactions, feelings etc. Sure, they come from millions of years of surviving among humans. But we are now ants or naked mole rats. The more you cram people ontge planet, the more it shifts to socialism. Adapt or die!

[mistermack]

Seth's logic is very child-like.

Keep repeating the same bollocks, even if the grown-ups have dismissed it.

Desperately clinging to his own definition of "human being" is fine. He's entitled to use whatever definition he likes. Most people take a different view. The law takes a different view.
A fertilised egg is not a human being in law. For someone who loves quoting the supreme court, etc, it's hypocritical it ignore that, just because it doesn't match your own wishes.

There is no scientific definition of "human being". It's just a name we use to describe what we are, with all it's faults as a name. Names don't have to be definitive.
Hammerhead sharks don't have hammers for heads.
Sea cucumbers aren't vegetables.
Dogfish and catfish are not a cross between mammals and fish.

The main reason that we call ourselves "human beings", is vanity.
We don't like to think of ourselves as animals.
We don't say '' lion beings '' or '' elephant beings ''.
To be consistent we should just call ourselves '' humans ''.

And this idea of fertilised human eggs being humans is unique to one species.
Who in their right mind, would refer to a fertilised lion egg as a lion? Or a duck egg as a duck?
Oh look, I have fifteen elephants in this test tube !!

[Seth]

The general view among gynaecologists over here is that the current twenty four week limit is the most ideal and consequently there is
no requirement at this point in time to have it changed. Though no law is absolute and if new scientific knowledge is acquired that may
require a change in law then one may be debated and even acted upon. And it should be the medical professionals that legislators listen
to because they can speak from a position of knowledge with complete objectivity. Unlike either pro or anti abortionists who speak from
a position of emotion so are totally non objective. And emotional reasoning is not and should never be the basis on which any law is made

Um, nobody can speak with "complete objectivity." Further, "emotional reasoning" is a necessary component of moral decision making and therefore is an essential part of lawmaking. Not everything is amenable to "objective" determination because society is comprised of human beings who have moral values and beliefs that must be respected to some degree in order for society to function. The role of the law is to find a middle ground that both represents and protects all of the interests involved as much as possible consistent with ordered liberty. This requires compromise between factions and conflicting ideologies and moral beliefs. That's why we here in the US don't saw off the heads of Muslims (or anybody else), even though there are a good many people who would like to do so out of revenge for the barbarbarisms of radical Islam elsewhere.

What medical professionals can and should do is to advise legislators about the facts of science and medicine, such as at what point in fetal development does the fetus experience pain, so that the legislators, who are the representatives of the people, can make informed decisions consistent with the wishes of their constituents about the moral issues involved.

Acknowledging that a fetus is a living human being is the first step in any scientific advice because that's a fundamental scientific fact.

[Seth]

Seth's logic is very child-like.

Keep repeating the same bollocks, even if the grown-ups have dismissed it.

Just because idiots who think they are smart dismiss logic and reason doesn't mean it's not worth repeating the obvious and undeniable scientific facts involved. That's necessary lest some credulous lurker believe the idiocy such morons spout.

[Seth]

Psst, Seth! Science is...socialim. Whacko libertarianism, 2nd amendment etc are gut reactions, feelings etc. Sure, they come from millions of years of surviving among humans. But we are now ants or naked mole rats. The more you cram people ontge planet, the more it shifts to socialism. Adapt or die!

Or arrange for the Darwinian dead-end socialists to die, thus leaving the planet to their evolutionary superiors. I like that idea better. We should drive socialists off of cliffs like the lemmings they are, as a matter of necessary population control and evolutionary protection.

[Seth]

I said "crime against humanity". It's like a bad thing. Overpopulation etc. Science can be used to measure quality of life. More people less quality.

Wrong. Science can be used to measure physical phenomena, that's it. "Quality of life" is entirely subjective, immaterial, non-scientific and therefore cannot be so measured.

Besides, your statement is an iteration of the fallacious appeal to nature in which you suggest that it is somehow worse if there are more people. To the contrary, people are the most basic and fundamental producers of quality of life, and without enough of them, the quality of life diminishes.

Therefore, the social and philosophical (not scientific) question becomes "how many people does it take to produce and maintain the highest quality of life for humans that is theoretically possible?"

It's math, stupid! We can only grow so much food. Quality is measured in square feet per dwelling, access to clean water, electricity etc.

You falsely presume that starving human beings is worse than non-starving human beings. This shows an anthropocentric bias that embodies the fallacious appeal to nature. Nature will take care of human overpopulation in its own good time, just like it deals with any ecological imbalance. Earth abides. You may not, however. Sucks to be you I guess.