And they try again...

[Dill]

(01-25-2017, 12:45 PM)hollodero Wrote: I'm not entirely sure what you mean... I got to say though, the statement "human life starts with contraception" is, obviously, a scientifically valid defnition. bfine is just right.
I also think it's not momentous for any king of legislation. And I'd feel uneasy about that definition being part of a proposed bill.

Sometimes I'm glad I live in Europe. We had a hefty public debate about abortion once, many years ago. Then we passed a law and everyone finally got behind that compromise (abortion is legal within 3 months after nidation). And it was never seriously debated since. 
Your whole scratching and reintroducing this "Mexico City" approach alone is astonishing. Your system doesn't seem to allow for any kind of compromise or social accordance any longer. And since power in your system is bound to swing between red and blue until eternity, abortion is bound to be a neverending topic. 

A judgment of fact is subject to empirical confirmation. If I say George Bush was the 43rd president of the US, that is a judgment of fact. If I say he was a bad president, or a good one, I am making a value judgment, something qualitatively different. If is not a "fact" he was a bad president, even though I think he was.

 Laws are based upon values, though in a court case, factual judgments may be required to determine whether a law was violated.  The law says it is wrong/illegal to park in a certain space. You park in it. You get a ticket. It is a factual judgment that you parked there, not a value judgment. That you parked illegally is a value judgment.

Applied to abortion--there are many points from before conception till after birth that one could define as the beginning of "personhood" or "life as a human."  Answers to the question are diverse because people are applying differing sets of values to the question of when human life "officially" begins. Because they can point to biological "fact" like conception or the first heartbeat or actual birth does not mean it is a "fact" that life begins then.

The function of ideology is to confuse judgments of value with judgments of fact.  So denying that life begins a conception or whatever is supposedly like denying facts, science, etc.

[*bfine32*]

(01-25-2017, 02:58 PM)hollodero Wrote: Ehm.
First, I'd guess gametes can't develop into a human being before being merged through fertilization. A zygode, however, can and does that. I consider that a distinct difference.

Focker keeps asking the question what is the difference between the two "besides" fertilization. Not really sure what else he needs besides The fertilization IS the difference. We all understand he is a nurse and gets emotional and overly technical on such subjects, when it's really not that complicated.

BTW, I'm not sure you and I should be agreeing.

[*bfine32*]

(01-25-2017, 04:05 PM)BengalHawk62 Wrote: LOL!!!!   I am so totally using that one tonight with my wife. 

She falls for it all the time.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(01-25-2017, 02:58 PM)hollodero Wrote: Ehm.
First, I'd guess gametes can't develop into a human being before being merged through fertilization. A zygode, however, can and does that. I consider that a distinct difference.

A zygote may develop into a human being under the right conditions, but fails to do so approximately 50% of the time because the conditions aren't conducive for development.  Gametes can also develop into human beings under the right conditions. It just involves one additional condition (and I can think of at least one exception.)

Quote:Second, I do not consider that question to be too important apart from the technical standpoint. Even bfine said that a stand on abortion doesn't necessarily have to stem from that definition. Why you are so insisting on that part is a bit strange to me. I'm not overly interested in that definitions, I don't think it's relevant. If the Trump administration uses that definition to justify outlawing abortion, I'm with you in protest. I fully remain "Pro choice" as you call it.

"Pro Life."  Life is in the term. So a stand against abortion or a Pro Life stand does stem from the definition of human life.  The bill proposes a definition of when human life begins. My question pertains to what constitutes human life and what doesn't.  I don't understand how my question doesn't matter.  Because what constitutes human life affects when human life begins.  Law is a profession of "technical standpoints."  The technical difference is this: if we assign individual rights to a living, single celled, genetically unique, human zygote we must also assign individual rights to a living, single celled, genetically unique, human gamete.  Which means any form of birth control is murder the same as a Pro Lifer believes abortion is murder.  Male masturbation=murder.  Gonna have to outlaw that, too.  Which means sex is for procreation only.  Sex for pleasure will need to be outlawed as well.

Unless there is some reason a haploid human gamete isn't human, which there is no such reason.

Quote:Third, the assertion that human life starts with fertilization is not exactly my personal stance. It's what most scientists agree on. I didn't think so at first, but turns out that's indeed the scientific take.

No, that is not what most scientist agree on.  It is what most people without a biology background believe scientists believe when they read a biology textbook or the textbooks are poorly worded for a middle or high school classroom when they try to apply the science to an abortion argument because the textbooks aren't written for an abortion argument.

Does the development of a new human begin with fertilization?  Yes.  Is that the start of new human life?  No.

If we have two human gametes which are both dead, will we have fertilization and a new human?  No.  Why?  Because the gametes aren't filled with "Life." The gametes are inanimate.

If we have two human gametes and only one is alive, will we have fertilization and a new human?  No.  Why?  Because one of the gametes is inanimate.

Why is this important?  Because we can't create "new" life if both gametes aren't already animated with "Life."

The whole sanctity of human life or Pro Life or human life begins at fertilization argument is a semantics argument.  The definitions matter in any sematics argument or any legal argument.

[hollodero]

(01-25-2017, 04:23 PM)Dill Wrote: A judgment of fact is subject to empirical confirmation. If I say George Bush was the 43rd president of the US, that is a judgment of fact. If I say he was a bad president, or a good one, I am making a value judgment, something qualitatively different. If is not a "fact" he was a bad president, even though I think he was.

 Laws are based upon values, though in a court case, factual judgments may be required to determine whether a law was violated.  The law says it is wrong/illegal to park in a certain space. You park in it. You get a ticket. It is a factual judgment that you parked there, not a value judgment. That you parked illegally is a value judgment.

Applied to abortion--there are many points from before conception till after birth that one could define as the beginning of "personhood" or "life as a human."  Answers to the question are diverse because people are applying differing sets of values to the question of when human life "officially" begins. Because they can point to biological "fact" like conception or the first heartbeat or actual birth does not mean it is a "fact" that life begins then.

The function of ideology is to confuse judgments of value with judgments of fact.  So denying that life begins a conception or whatever is supposedly like denying facts, science, etc.

Got it. And I too would say that the definition of when life starts shouldn't shape the abortion debate.

Just noticed that I wrote "human life starts with contraception" -- and you all swallowed it. :)

(01-25-2017, 04:27 PM)bfine32 Wrote: BTW, I'm not sure you and I should be agreeing.

Why not? I can somehow live with that... 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(01-25-2017, 04:27 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Focker keeps asking the question what is the difference between the two "besides" fertilization. Not really sure what else he needs besides The fertilization IS the difference. We all understand he is a nurse and gets emotional and overly technical on such subjects, when it's really not that complicated.

BTW, I'm not sure you and I should be agreeing.

I'm not a nurse, Dumb Focker.  I'm not asking the difference besides fertilization, either.  I guess you're too much of a Dumb Focker to even understand the Focking question.

Quote:Human life is when the 23 chromosomes of the sperm combine with the 23 chromosomes of the egg to create 23 pair 

Your skin cells have 23 pairs of chromosomes.  Should we assign individual rights to your skin cells and pass legislation prohibiting you from clipping your toenails?

Stop ignoring the science and give me a science based answer to my question.  If you don't know the answer, that's fine.  Just admit you don't know the answer.  But, stop the Focking petty bullshit.

[BengalHawk62]

(01-25-2017, 04:30 PM)bfine32 Wrote: bfine32 falls for it all the time.

fixed it for ya!

[*bfine32*]

(01-25-2017, 04:48 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: I'm not a nurse, Dumb Focker.  I'm not asking the difference besides fertilization, either.  I guess you're too much of a Dumb Focker to even understand the Focking question.


Your skin cells have 23 pairs of chromosomes.  Should we assign individual rights to your skin cells and pass legislation prohibiting you from clipping your toenails?

Stop ignoring the science and give me a science based answer to my question.  If you don't know the answer, that's fine.  Just admit you don't know the answer.  But, stop the Focking petty bullshit.

I have nipples. Can you milk me Greg?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(01-25-2017, 05:02 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I have nipples. Can you milk me Greg?

You have gone from accusing others of ignoring the science to talking about your Focking nipples instead of talking about the science.



But, I bet your nipples are spectacular.

[hollodero]

(01-25-2017, 04:32 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: "Pro Life."  Life is in the term. So a stand against abortion or a Pro Life stand does stem from the definition of human life.  The bill proposes a definition of when human life begins. My question pertains to what constitutes human life and what doesn't.  I don't understand how my question doesn't matter.

Listen, I said that the law should not be based on a definition, so the point is kind of lost on me. If the law is based on the definition that life starts with conception and hence abortion is murder, I'd stand up against it (in my country at least, in yours no one would care what I do). So there's that.
I have seen no one in here yet that stated abortions need to be outlawed because of this definition. So I think you're kind of fighting with shadows.

(01-25-2017, 04:32 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: The technical difference is this: if we assign individual rights to a living, single celled, genetically unique, human zygote we must also assign individual rights to a living, single celled, genetically unique, human gamete.  Which means any form of birth control is murder the same as a Pro Lifer believes abortion is murder.  Male masturbation=murder.  Gonna have to outlaw that, too.  Which means sex is for procreation only.  Sex for pleasure will need to be outlawed as well.

That's a line of thinking that would be relevant if anyone had said "we have to outlaw abortion because the zygode is the starting point of life".
It might be someone's personal belief, but again, no one fell into that line of argueing in the first place.

(01-25-2017, 04:32 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: No, that is not what most scientist agree on.  It is what most people without a biology background believe scientists believe when they read a biology textbook or the textbooks are poorly worded for a middle or high school classroom when they try to apply the science to an abortion argument because the textbooks aren't written for an abortion argument.

Does the development of a new human begin with fertilization?  Yes.  Is that the start of new human life?  No.

Well, I looked around a bit, trying to find a scientific consensus that life starts at some later stage of embryonal development. Couldn't find that consensus. I found some that claimed it's an ethical question and can't be truely answered scientifically. I found more evidence that said fertilization is the starting point for human life. Without any political implication.
You can take a look at this or you can claim that's nonsense and the answer has to be a different one, whatever. I found these and similar descriptions as being quite unbiased. But I'm not a biologist, sure.

This I found on rationalwiki and it sums up what I have to say to all this:

Quote:The entity created by fertilization is indeed a human embryo, and it has the potential to be human adult. Whether these facts are enough to accord it personhood is a question influenced by opinion, philosophy and theology, rather than by science.

(01-25-2017, 04:32 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: The whole sanctity of human life or Pro Life or human life begins at fertilization argument is a semantics argument.  The definitions matter in any sematics argument or any legal argument.

To me it isn't a semantics argument, nor should it be.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(01-25-2017, 05:17 PM)hollodero Wrote: Listen, I said that the law should not be based on a definition, so the point is kind of lost on me. If the law is based on the definition that life starts with conception and hence abortion is murder, I'd stand up against it (in my country at least, in yours no one would care what I do). So there's that.
I have seen no one in here yet that stated abortions need to be outlawed because of this definition. So I think you're kind of fighting with shadows.


That's a line of thinking that would be relevant if anyone had said "we have to outlaw abortion because the zygode is the starting point of life".
It might be someone's personal belief, but again, no one fell into that line of argueing in the first place.


Well, I looked around a bit, trying to find a scientific consensus that life starts at some later stage of embryonal development. Couldn't find that consensus. I found some that claimed it's an ethical question and can't be truely answered scientifically. I found more evidence that said fertilization is the starting point for human life. Without any political implication.
You can take a look at this or you can claim that's nonsense and the answer has to be a different one, whatever. I found these and similar descriptions as being quite unbiased. But I'm not a biologist, sure.

This I found on rationalwiki and it sums up what I have to say to all this:




To me it isn't a semantics argument, nor should it be.

Why do you think they are trying to get the bill passed?

[hollodero]

(01-25-2017, 05:34 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Why do you think they are trying to get the bill passed?

As I said, I'd feel very uneasy about that one too. I'm fully pro choice.

Doesn't mean that science clearly refutes the notion that life starts with fertilization. Sorry, to me it just doesn't look that way, to me it seems you just deperately want it to be that way so that the intentions of that bill have no ground to stand on. 
Which I'd all be for; and I would have welcomed it had I found valid reason for making this argument in good conscience. But for me the facts just aren't there. Science, at the very best, is torn on that one.
All I can come up with is "It's an ethical, social and political question, not a scientific one".

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(01-25-2017, 05:17 PM)hollodero Wrote:  this

Quote:The question of when human life begins has been answered in a variety of ways by different religious and philosophical traditions throughout the ages, leading many to conclude the question cannot be definitively answered. Yet what does science tell us about when life begins?[1] One of the basic insights of modern biology is that life is continuous*, with living cells giving rise to new types of cells and, ultimately, to new individuals. Therefore, in considering the question of when a new human life begins, we must first address the more fundamental question of when a new cell, distinct from sperm and egg, comes into existence.

The scientific basis for distinguishing one cell type from another rests on two criteria: differences in what something is made of (its molecular composition) and differences in how the cell behaves.** These two criteria are universally agreed upon and employed throughout the scientific enterprise. They are not “religious” beliefs or matters of personal opinion. They are objective, verifiable scientific criteria that determine precisely when a new cell type is formed.

* That has been my point this entire time.

** The same applies to the gametes and the primordial germ cells which produce the gametes and the gametes and the zygote.

So bascially, the author claims life is continuous in the second paragraph then spends the rest of the time contradicting herself.

This is from the Charlotte Lozier home page . . .

Quote:The Charlotte Lozier Institute is committed to bringing the power of science, medicine, and research to bear in life-related policy making, media, and cultural debates.

As the education and research arm of the Susan B. Anthony List, our institute gathers the latest scientific and statistical information to protect human life – at all stages and conditions of dependency.

I will let you judge for yourself if that has any political implication or not.

[hollodero]

(01-25-2017, 05:51 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: I will let you judge for yourself if that has any political implication or not.

Eh... well OK, point taken. Even though there were still scientists talking, not Conservative politicians. I'd have more German links, to be honest :)

Wikipedia gives me this:

Quote:Many members of the medical community accept fertilization as the point at which life begins. Dr. Bradley M. Patten from the University of Michigan wrote in Human Embryology that the union of the sperm and the ovum "initiates the life of a new individual" beginning "a new individual life history." In the standard college text book Psychology and Life, Dr. Floyd L. Ruch wrote "At the time of conception, two living germ cells—the sperm from the father and the egg, or ovum, from the mother—unite to produce a new individual." Dr. Herbert Ratner wrote that "It is now of unquestionable certainty that a human being comes into existence precisely at the moment when the sperm combines with the egg." This certain knowledge, Ratner says, comes from the study of genetics. At fertilization, all of the genetic characteristics, such as the color of the eyes, "are laid down determinatively." James C. G. Conniff noted the prevalence of the above views in a study published by The New York Times Magazine in which he wrote, "At that moment conception takes place and, scientists generally agree, a new life begins—silent, secret, unknown."[22]

Eh... and then some say it starts 14 days after fertilization, there are some other opinions out there, none of which I found to be particularly helpful for the cause. I found no scientist saying three months after conception is the starting point for life.
No matter how hard I look, the pro choice standpoint seems to be better served when stating that it's not foremost a scientific question. Which I believe to be true.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(01-25-2017, 05:45 PM)hollodero Wrote: As I said, I'd feel very uneasy about that one too. I'm fully pro choice.

Doesn't mean that science clearly refutes the notion that life starts with fertilization. Sorry, to me it just doesn't look that way, to me it seems you just deperately want it to be that way so that the intentions of that bill have no ground to stand on. 
Which I'd all be for; and I would have welcomed it had I found valid reason for making this argument in good conscience. But for me the facts just aren't there. Science, at the very best, is torn on that one.
All I can come up with is "It's an ethical, social and political question, not a scientific one".

I completely agree there is no universal consensus.  Again, that is my point.

I'm not playing some cutesy game of "gotcha" like some people are worried about.  I know why I believe the bill was introduced.  I ask why you believe the bill was introduced because I genuinely want to know.  If you don't tell me, I'll just be assuming I know why.

As far as the political landscape in Austria, I don't have a clue.  I would defer to your expertise.  I am familiar with the political landscape here in the U.S.  I will tell you, unequivocally, the reason these types of bills get introduced is to chip away at Roe vs. Wade one little chip at a time.

No one here has argued that abortion is murder, but that is the intent of this bill.

Quote:Sanctity of Human Life Act

This bill declares that: (1) the right to life guaranteed by the Constitution is vested in each human and is a person's most fundamental right; (2) each human life begins with fertilization, cloning, or its equivalent, at which time every human has all the legal and constitutional attributes and privileges of personhood; and (3) Congress, each state, the District of Columbia, and each U.S. territory have the authority to protect all human lives.

Restated, Congress has the authority to protect the life of the fetus beginning at fertilization because the embryo is assigned individual rights at the moment of fertilization.

Roe vs. Wade basically assigns rights on a sliding scale.  The rights of the fetus supercede the rights of the woman at the point of viability because the fetus does not have individual rights.  Individual rights aren't assigned to an individual until the time of birth.  This bill would change that because if passed the zygote would have individual rights, most importantly is the guaranteed right to life which Congress would have the authority to protect=no abortions.

[*michaelsean*]

(01-25-2017, 06:10 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote:  

As far as the political landscape in Austria, I don't have a clue.  I would defer to your expertise.  I am familiar with the political landscape here in the U.S.  I will tell you, unequivocally, the reason these types of bills get introduced is to chip away at Roe vs. Wade one little chip at a time.

 

Well of course it is.  And it's what people who don't like Citizens United or any other decision will attempt to do.  

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(01-25-2017, 06:07 PM)hollodero Wrote: Eh... well OK, point taken. Even though there were still scientists talking, not Conservative politicians. I'd have more German links, to be honest :)

Even scientists have views on abortion.

Quote:Wikipedia gives me this:


Eh... and then some say it starts 14 days after fertilization, there are some other opinions out there, none of which I found to be particularly helpful for the cause. I found no scientist saying three months after conception is the starting point for life.
No matter how hard I look, the pro choice standpoint seems to be better served when stating that it's not foremost a scientific question. Which I believe to be true.

Am I correct in saying there isn't a universal scientific consensus on when life or human life begins?  

If so, the conservative Pro Life opinion is that life (really only human life) begins at fertilization.  A claim based upon the science.  Unsettled science.

The conservative view on climate science is that it is unsettled.  The conservative view on life begins at fertilization is settled scientifically.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(01-25-2017, 06:21 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Well of course it is.  And it's what people who don't like Citizens United or any other decision will attempt to do.  

I agree with you, but there seems to be some doubt regarding the intent of the bill.  I just wanted to establish the bill's intent as best we could.

[hollodero]

(01-25-2017, 06:10 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: I completely agree there is no universal consensus.  Again, that is my point.

Seems like it. Although I feel most scientists will more or less use fertilization or a moment very shortly after conception as the starting point. If science even can answer this question and if there is any definite starting point at all, which I would doubt (both intellectually and strategically).

(01-25-2017, 06:10 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: I'm not playing some cutesy game of "gotcha" like some people are worried about.

I never guessed. After all we're completely on the same side here, so I never figured this was an act of deliberate liberal on liberal violence or anything :)

(01-25-2017, 06:10 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: I know why I believe the bill was introduced.  I ask why you believe the bill was introduced because I genuinely want to know.  If you don't tell me, I'll just be assuming I know why.

Oh, I thought I made that clear already. I fully agree with your worries. I too would think it's probably a first step to outlaw abortion. As I said, I'd feel very uneasy and understand you.

(01-25-2017, 06:10 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Restated, Congress has the authority to protect the life of the fetus beginning at fertilization because the embryo is assigned individual rights at the moment of fertilization.

Roe vs. Wade basically assigns rights on a sliding scale.  The rights of the fetus supercede the rights of the woman at the point of viability because the fetus does not have individual rights.  Individual rights aren't assigned to an individual until the time of birth.  This bill would change that because if passed the zygote would have individual rights, most importantly is the guaranteed right to life which Congress would have the authority to protect=no abortions.

OK, that looks grim.
And the Roe vs. Wade solution seems a bit strange, too. Would that mean abortion, as of now, would be legal just until birth?

[*michaelsean*]

(01-25-2017, 06:35 PM)hollodero Wrote: Seems like it. Although I feel most scientists will more or less use fertilization or a moment very shortly after conception as the starting point. If science even can answer this question and if there is any definite starting point at all, which I would doubt (both intellectually and strategically).


I never guessed. After all we're completely on the same side here, so I never figured this was an act of deliberate liberal on liberal violence or anything :)


Oh, I thought I made that clear already. I fully agree with your worries. I too would think it's probably a first step to outlaw abortion. As I said, I'd feel very uneasy and understand you.


OK, that looks grim.
And the Roe vs. Wade solution seems a bit strange, too. Would that mean abortion, as of now, would be legal just until birth?

I think there has to be a pretty extreme situation like the mother will die.