Falsification

[VickiRW]

For instance, "Late term abortion = killing a viable baby, hence immoral to human survival" is demonstrable, but "Late term abortion = your soul going to Hell" is not.

Are you actually saying that? Satire doesn't always come across - so apologies if I'm mis-reading you.

Demonstrable?
"Late term abortion = killing a viable baby"
Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Where are you getting this from?

"hence immoral"
There is no clear consensus on the question of whether or not morality is objective or subjective. Given that underlying question, I'm not clear on how any moral judgement can be demonstrable. Are you saying immoral relative to some implied moral code? That could be demonstrable, but you need to state the moral code.

"to human survival"
And how can you even say that late term abortion adversely affects human survival? You are demonstrably ending one life, but I COULD argue you are benefiting the human race as a whole. It certainly isn't clearly posing a danger. It isn't like we are running out of people.

That said, getting back to the topic at hand: I agree with you on science being unfettered. There is no reason for the church to make calls on which hypothesis has enough evidentiary backing to be the accepted theory. And to directly answer Moonwood - yes, science should be self regulating. For one, it's very essence is testing ourselves for mistakes in thinking. Because of this, not only should it theoretically be better at self-regulating, but we can show that this has been the case historically. When there have been problems (Newtonian physics, which doesn't work in extremes; or fraud like the study showing the link between vaccines and autism) they are corrected. When the Catholic church has a problem, they just move the priest to a new parish. How we want to implement the findings of science is a social question. But I think we need to be clear that how we implement the findings of science is different than deciding if we are willing to acknowledge the findings of science. So, science has learned how to make atomic weapons. Appropriate social question: should we use atomic weapons? Inappropriate social question: Has science really learned how to make atomic weapons? Also, we can't divorce science from the social questions. Like with the abortion issue above, we can't say - sure, science has said some things, but now I'm going to talk about social implications and so I can completely ignore the facts. In deciding whether or not to use atomic weapons, we have to make sure we understand the science so that we are correctly appraising the potential outcomes of various courses of action. We can't say, hey- it's cool because the radiation will give the people super powers so we aren't really hurting innocent civilians and it is ok that I just made that up because 1- it is demonstrable since I'm not mentioning souls and 2 - because we are talking about social issues now, not science.

[Keep The Reason]

Are you actually saying that? Satire doesn't always come across - so apologies if I'm mis-reading you.

Demonstrable?
"Late term abortion = killing a viable baby"
Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Where are you getting this from?

From the times that we can say, "Sometimes yes", which are your words, too, right? If a late term abortion involves a fully formed baby a few weeks from birth (hence viable), yeah, you'd be killing a person who happens to be on the inside of the uterine wall. Do you disagree that an 8 month old is not a "baby" ? There are points in the development of a human where they are not a viable baby, and then there are points when they are, even if they are a few inches behind muscle and tissue.

"hence immoral"
There is no clear consensus on the question of whether or not morality is objective or subjective. Given that underlying question, I'm not clear on how any moral judgement can be demonstrable. Are you saying immoral relative to some implied moral code? That could be demonstrable, but you need to state the moral code.

All human morality is subjective to human interests.

"to human survival"
And how can you even say that late term abortion adversely affects human survival? You are demonstrably ending one life, but I COULD argue you are benefiting the human race as a whole. It certainly isn't clearly posing a danger. It isn't like we are running out of people.

If a late term baby is a baby, then killing it in abortion is in fact murder. Murder is not beneficial to human survival as a practice. I think it's important for people to see the difference between a zygote and a baby 4 weeks prior to its birthing time. They are two different types of life, one that is potential, the other that is viable. My position s both logical and consistent. I have no issue with an abortion before the brain and revise system has developed, I believe it becomes more complicated a scenario after that point, and I consider it murder once the baby is fully formed and viable, but simply on the inside of another persons body.

I'm n agreement with most of the rest of your post.

[JustJim]

I was born weighing 4 lbs 9 oz at 32 weeks (6 weeks early), and, with the aid of an incubator and some very skilled doctors and nurses, I survived to put on another 265 lbs and live another 65+ years - so far. If the medical personnel had just let me lie on the table and die, when I could have survived with their help, would they have been guilty of committing some kind of homicide by their inaction? If so, then why would they not be guilty of some kind of homicide by their action in terminating a baby in utero at 34 weeks, when that baby could have survived if they had allowed it to?

Jim

[Keep The Reason]

I was born weighing 4 lbs 9 oz at 32 weeks (6 weeks early), and, with the aid of an incubator and some very skilled doctors and nurses, I survived to put on another 265 lbs and live another 65+ years - so far. If the medical personnel had just let me lie on the table and die, when I could have survived with their help, would they have been guilty of committing some kind of homicide by their inaction? If so, then why would they not be guilty of some kind of homicide by their action in terminating a baby in utero at 34 weeks, when that baby could have survived if they had allowed it to?

Jim

The gray areas become grayer as the human fetus develops, plain and simple. That's why I do not favor later term abortions. I have no problem with 1st trimester, and a lot of problem with 3rd trimester. It's not something that has an easy answer.

Glad you got to join the party, JJ

[VickiRW]

If a late term baby is a baby, then killing it in abortion is in fact murder.

Seriously, do you know anything about the reality of abortion, or are you just making stuff up here?

Do you have any idea how rare late term abortions are? Why on earth would a woman who doesn't want a baby put her body through that much of a pregnancy? Second trimester abortions aren't even common. The typical reason for late term abortions is some sort of health problem. I'm not even sure how you would go about getting one otherwise. In most states it is illegal. Most doctors would have ethical issues that would stop them from performing an abortion in this situation unless it was medically necessary. You would probably have to leave the country and at that point - it is just plain easier to have a doctor induce you early (yes, they will do that) and then give it up for adoption. So this equation you are making between late term pregnancies that are being aborted and viable babies is just silly. Was Terri Schiavo murdered?

I do get the point you are trying to make. The vaginal channel doesn't magically bestow humanity. I do think the whole "famous violinist" case makes a sound argument, however. So the real question is - would inducing labor pose more of a risk to the woman than an abortive procedure that killed the fetus. If her life is put in danger, she should not be legally required to risk her life to save the life of another person. Period. Would it be super nobel of her - or anyone, in any situation - to risk her life to save another? Of course. But legally required? No. You have a right to bodily autonomy. We even extend that right to death row inmates. We can't require them to donate blood for example.

Look- I'm thinking we don't disagree on much here. Just don't make stuff up. That's all I'm saying.

[VickiRW]

"famous violinist" case makes a sound argument

ha, ha! Pun so not intended...

[Keep The Reason]

Seriously, do you know anything about the reality of abortion, or are you just making stuff up here?

This kind of response is just plain irritating. I'm talking about guidelines of a philosophical nature, not specific laws or statistics, and you're leaping over that context and turning it into, "Do you know how rare such and such is?". Yeah. It's rare. So what? The philosophical guideline is meant to make a point, not to argue the legalities of abortion.

And I know you get it because, quoting you again, you yourself say:

"I do get the point you are trying to make. The vaginal channel doesn't magically bestow humanity"

Yeah, Vicki, that. It's a point I'm trying to make, I'm not suggesting anything more or less. And if you want to have a debate on the legality or common occurrence of certain types of abortions, I'm sure you can find someone who will take a contrary position. That person, however, is not me.

Was Terri Schiavo murdered?

No because, not surprisingly, her vegetative state was like that of a first trimester fetus. Ironic.

Look- I'm thinking we don't disagree on much here. Just don't make stuff up. That's all I'm saying.

Analogous illustration is not "making stuff up". You're not only arguing a straw man here, you're in a room by yourself doing it.

[VickiRW]

"Late term abortion = killing a viable baby

Equating two things that are neither necessarily the same in theory nor commonly the same in practice = unreasonable statement.

[VickiRW]

I'm going to try to start over here because I think this is an argument that could only happen on an internet forum with its intrinsic communication impedances.

I've tried to be clear, though maybe not enough, that I have no major issues with the original point you were making nor with what you meant to be saying with your supporting example. I am trying to say that your supporting example isn't a good supporting example because the reality is different than you seemed to be implying.

Fact-checking points is very different from a straw man argument that twists something you said for the purposes of being able to dismiss the whole argument.

If you think "making stuff up" was too harsh, please notice that I started out apologizing if I mis-read you, saying that you didn't have it quite right, and asking where you were coming from. If you are going to double down, you should know the facts or be prepared to be called out.

I thought that you would think the Schiavo case is similar to a 1st trimester fetus, as do I. I think perhaps I didn't make this point well, but I was trying to take this common ground and point you to the similarity with a non-viable 3rd trimester fetus (the subject I was discussing if you look at the context) which is the actual typical situation in late term abortions.

And if you find this irritating, try to think for a moment about how this looks from my angle. I have said, again and again, that I do basically agree with you. I have been clear that I am simply pointing out a fact that you had wrong. A philosophical argument, no matter how true, if weakened by supporting points that are not factually accurate. Your response has simply been dismissive.

[Moonwood the Hare]

I defended the Church's approach to the science. The social aspect is more complex. It comes down to the question of whether science should self regulating or whether other social agences such as Church or state should be involved. I've been reading Paul Feyarabend.

Science itself should be unfettered and free to explore whatever comes down the pipeline. Responsible social agencies should be involved in how the discoveries should be implemented. What defines "responsible" is, of course, a point of discussion but whatever else I would insist that the agency be tasked to support its contentions in some clearly demonstrable way before its impact could be taken seriously.

For instance, "Late term abortion = killing a viable baby, hence immoral to human survival" is demonstrable, but "Late term abortion = your soul going to Hell" is not.

I'm not sure you can draw a hard and fast line between exploration and implementation. As far as Galileo goes the Church did have demonstration on its side and Galileo did not. 200 years later there were theories and facts to back up Copernicanism but not very many at the time and all of them debatable. Ultimately I'd support the idea of free enquiry and the right of people to go for theories that go against the accepted ideas and without strong evidence so I'd back Galileo and any other wild ass ideas that might be interesting or even true.

The trouble with your abortion argument, quite apart from anything else that people have said is that people don't oppose abortion on the kind of grounds you cite in the latter part, at least not in public debate; I think people see it would not wash. As for the former part given that infanticide has been the norm in almost every culture apart from the three main theistic traditions, that it is common in other species including our close relatives (these are the aspects of primatology I have accused you of overlooking) and that many post Christian moral philosophers such as say Peter Singer have supported it I don't think you have a strong case for that one on evolutionary grounds. I'm not even sure why it is so important for the human species to survive.

[Aaron]

I'm not even sure why it is so important for the human species to survive.

What are you saying Moonwood?

[Moonwood the Hare]

What are you saying Moonwood?

I'm saying that if we make the survival of the human species the source of our meta-ethic then we are committed to saying that whatever promotes that survival is ethical even if, like infanticide, it may go against traditional ethics. Would it be better to let the species go and retain some of its humanity rather than trying to keep the species at any cost? It's not a new idea. It's the message behind the dialogue between Weston and the Oyarsa at the end of Lewis's Out of the Silent Planet and the theme of several of his essays.

[Keep The Reason]

I'm going to try to start over here because I think this is an argument that could only happen on an internet forum with its intrinsic communication impedances.

Ok, I think you're right. Where this is crossing by is that my intent at the example is that's it's meant allegorically, in that a perfectly fine baby in the womb in the last 10 weeks of pregnancy is not the same as a fetus in the first 10 weeks-- to abort such a baby is no different from killing a baby happily cooing in its crib.

Certainly a baby in the last 10 weeks who is severely deformed, aencephalic, or critically strangled and has no chance of surviving (but whose existence might kill the mother) would be justified in aborting.

So I can see how the equation approach I took could be misunderstood because it's not clear.

Let me know if this clears it up.

[VickiRW]

KTR: Absolutely. I've agreed with the point you are making from the start. Some claims are demonstrable. Claims involving non-material things are not.

I think it is only fair of me to note as well what my own motivations are here. There has been a lot of nastiness playing out on the national stage lately surrounding women's reproductive health issues that involves deliberate lies and misinformation. I did not for a moment think that you were part of that, but I'm not in the mood to let misstatements on these issues go unchallenged.

Moonwood: I agree that our survival is only important to us. (Though I assume you would add God to the list of beings who want us to survive and I would also add dogs.) One interesting thing here would be to think about what would happen if another species, more advanced than humans, evolved. We tend to justify supremacy over other primates based on mental abilities. What if we weren't the smartest anymore? This question also reminds me of the debate over civil liberties vs fighting terrorism. Is national survival worth it if we loose what we value in our nation?

[Moonwood the Hare]

KTR: Absolutely. I've agreed with the point you are making from the start. Some claims are demonstrable. Claims involving non-material things are not.

I think it is only fair of me to note as well what my own motivations are here. There has been a lot of nastiness playing out on the national stage lately surrounding women's reproductive health issues that involves deliberate lies and misinformation. I did not for a moment think that you were part of that, but I'm not in the mood to let misstatements on these issues go unchallenged.

Moonwood: I agree that our survival is only important to us. (Though I assume you would add God to the list of beings who want us to survive and I would also add dogs.) One interesting thing here would be to think about what would happen if another species, more advanced than humans, evolved. We tend to justify supremacy over other primates based on mental abilities. What if we weren't the smartest anymore? This question also reminds me of the debate over civil liberties vs fighting terrorism. Is national survival worth it if we loose what we value in our nation?

There's a lovely story by Philip K Dick about a woman whose husband is replaced by an alien and she decides to keep the alien because he's kinder. commenting on the story Dick says that it is kindness that matters not which species you belong to. I don't think God wants survival of our species at any price and I don't think smarter necessarily means better. We lose a lot whenever we go to war but some of the most ethical people I know are soldiers; they know the odds and what's at stake I think.

Lead us, Evolution, lead us
Up the future's endless stair;
Chop us, change us, prod us, weed us.
For stagnation is despair:
Groping, guessing, yet progressing,
Lead us nobody knows where.

Wrong or justice, joy or sorrow,
In the present what are they
while there's always jam-tomorrow,
While we tread the onward way?
Never knowing where we're going,
We can never go astray.

To whatever variation
Our posterity may turn
Hairy, squashy, or crustacean,
Bulbous-eyed or square of stern,
Tusked or toothless, mild or ruthless,
Towards that unknown god we yearn.

Ask not if it's god or devil,
Brethren, lest your words imply
Static norms of good and evil
(As in Plato) throned on high;
Such scholastic, inelastic,
Abstract yardsticks we deny.

Far too long have sages vainly
Glossed great Nature's simple text;
He who runs can read it plainly,
'Goodness = what comes next.'
By evolving, Life is solving
All the questions we perplexed.

Oh then! Value means survival-
Value. If our progeny
Spreads and spawns and licks each rival,
That will prove its deity
(Far from pleasant, by our present,
Standards, though it may well be).
― C.S. Lewis