Abortion

[Jarhyn]

But it was you who didn't bother to read pood's post or the cited article, and laughingly dismiss it despite you clearly not understanding the point

You are correct.
Pood based his moral argument on an authority claiming that water cannot be defined.

I didn't bother to go into his authority.

Frankly, I think Pood is somewhere between lying and ignorant. I have got solid evidence on that. I read the post about me.
Tom

No, he based his argument about the inappropriateness of scientific definitions of "life" in discussing ethics on the arbitrariness of certain "scientific definitions".

 

[TomC]

But it was you who didn't bother to read pood's post or the cited article, and laughingly dismiss it despite you clearly not understanding the point

You are correct.
Pood based his moral argument on an authority claiming that water cannot be defined.

I didn't bother to go into his authority.

Frankly, I think Pood is somewhere between lying and ignorant. I have got solid evidence on that. I read the post about me.
Tom

No, he based his argument about the inappropriateness of scientific definitions of "life" in discussing ethics on the arbitrariness of certain "scientific definitions".

Similarly, Ken Ham bases his arguments on the inappropriateness of scientific assertions.

Like I've said many times before.
Talking to feticide rights people is often like talking to a YEC creationist. If science gets in your way it's wrong.

End of discussion.

Tom

 

[Jarhyn]

But it was you who didn't bother to read pood's post or the cited article, and laughingly dismiss it despite you clearly not understanding the point

You are correct.
Pood based his moral argument on an authority claiming that water cannot be defined.

I didn't bother to go into his authority.

Frankly, I think Pood is somewhere between lying and ignorant. I have got solid evidence on that. I read the post about me.
Tom

No, he based his argument about the inappropriateness of scientific definitions of "life" in discussing ethics on the arbitrariness of certain "scientific definitions".

Similarly, Ken Ham bases his arguments on the inappropriateness of scientific assertions.

Like I've said many times before.
Talking to feticide rights people is often like talking to a YEC creationist. If science gets in your way it's wrong.

End of discussion.

Tom

Tom, the majority of folks disagreeing with you are employed in STEM.

All the scientists here are pretty much in agreement here that it is inappropriate to try to apply a scientific definition to life as a criterion for ethical arguments without first demonstrating why that particular definition matters to ethics at all.

I would pose that the definitions that matter here are the ones which apply in the mathematical field of game theory, and that only starts long after a mind exists, has realized that it cannot doubt that it sits there doubting, and come to the point where those they ask mercy of "consent to give the extent of what they need", none of which a fetus unwanted by the mother has done.

 

[pood]

They are not trying to explain what life is.

Why are they even being used as an authority in this thread?

Science doesn't matter in and of itself.

From YEC to feticide rights, science only matters when it supports your world view. When science interferes, suddenly, concepts like water become too difficult to explain or understand.
You said that.
Tom

No, I did not say that. Can you possibly be this obtuse?

I am not using science as an authority, you are. You are contending not only that science has agreed on a univocal definition of life, but you at least strongly imply that this view includes holding that first-trimester fetuses are human children. My point in linking the paper under discussion is to demonstrate that you are wrong — there is no such scientifically agreed upon definition of life, and certainly science does not support the idea of “fetal children.“ That‘s your own ridiculous invention, and has nothing to do with science.

The point about the difficulty in defining sonething as seemingly simple as water is just as I have quoted from the paper in question, and will now do so again: “Many efforts to define ‘life’ fall afoul of the fact that no non-trivial term can be defined to philosophical completeness.”

What I am demonstrating here, to your obvious chagrin, is that you are wrong when you say that science supports your views on life, “fetal children,” and abortion. Science does NOT support your world view, so sorry.

 

[TomC]

Tom, the majority of folks disagreeing with you are employed in STEM.

So?
Pood said that NASA doesn't know the meaning of water.

I confident that it's not true, it's a nonsensical dodge because science doesn't support feticide rights.

But, according to Pood, NASA doesn't understand water or life. Nevertheless, NASA is an authority, according to Pood.

Tom

 

[TomC]

I am not using science as an authority, you are.

You aren't just using science as an authority, you're specifying which organization you are using as an authority.

One that doesn't understand water, according to your interpretation.

I don't think NASA is really like that. You're the one claiming that it is.
Tom

 

[pood]

But it was you who didn't bother to read pood's post or the cited article, and laughingly dismiss it despite you clearly not understanding the point

You are correct.
Pood based his moral argument on an authority claiming that water cannot be defined.

I didn't bother to go into his authority.

Frankly, I think Pood is somewhere between lying and ignorant. I have got solid evidence on that. I read the post about me.
Tom

No, he based his argument about the inappropriateness of scientific definitions of "life" in discussing ethics on the arbitrariness of certain "scientific definitions".

Similarly, Ken Ham bases his arguments on the inappropriateness of scientific assertions.

Like I've said many times before.
Talking to feticide rights people is often like talking to a YEC creationist. If science gets in your way it's wrong.

End of discussion.

Tom

Except, inconveniently for you, science on this subject DOES NOT assert what you claim it asserts, wrt the definition of life and abortion.

There is no such thing as “fetricide rights.” A zygote, an embryo and a first-trimester fetus are not children or persons. They do not even fit the NASA panel’s defintion of life at all, though the point of the article I linked is that the panel’s definition of life is already deeply problematic for reasons stated.

You have taken on board your Catholic childhood‘s indoctrination that abortion is morally wrong, that in fact it is murder. However, since you claim to have renounced Catholicism, you need a new authority to buttress your unwarranted claims, and have chosen science. All I have done is show that science does not agree with you.

 

[Jarhyn]

I am not using science as an authority, you are.

You aren't just using science as an authority, you're specifying which organization you are using as an authority.

One that doesn't understand water, according to your interpretation.

I don't think NASA is really like that. You're the one claiming that it is.
Tom

No, he's using a scientific authority on the inappropriateness of scientific terminology in discussing any matters surrounding arguments of ethics over "life" and it's ostensible value.

 

[Jarhyn]

Again, if you wish to defend any kind of view on the sanctity of life, you will first demand, exclusively, bills which financially support parents, single or not, not just through pregnancy but through to adulthood of their children, to support adoptive parents all the same when they do not wish to keep such a child, then continued education of such, and then make opportunities exist where cultural barriers to entry may exist.

Only after all that, once you can say every child born of every mother is wanted and welcome and mobile in our society to anywhere their personal merits warrant, only then can you come to me asking that we expect such children to exist, as the mercy we expect to give is available to everyone.

We will probably still say "no, it's her right" but at least then you could honestly claim to be pro-life.

 

[pood]

I am not using science as an authority, you are.

You aren't just using science as an authority, you're specifying which organization you are using as an authority.

One that doesn't understand water, according to your interpretation.

I don't think NASA is really like that. You're the one claiming that it is.
Tom

No, I am showing you that science has no univocal position on the definition of life. That is the thrust of the paper, which, btw, is NOT from NASA. The bit I quoted was a reference to a panel convoked by NASA to try to arrive at a definition of life, and why the definition has severe problems. Did you even bother to try to read the paper?

The paper’s point about water, as I have twice noted and am now noting for the third time, is that no non-trivial term can be defined to philosophical completness. Did you read that? Can you comprehend it? It totally demolishes your oft-repeated claim that science supports your position on abortion. It does not.

 

[pood]

I am not using science as an authority, you are.

You aren't just using science as an authority, you're specifying which organization you are using as an authority.

One that doesn't understand water, according to your interpretation.

I don't think NASA is really like that. You're the one claiming that it is.
Tom

No, he's using a scientific authority on the inappropriateness of scientific terminology in discussing any matters surrounding arguments of ethics over "life" and it's ostensible value.

Precisely. But TomC does not want to get this. He prefers to stuff straw and hurl insults.

 

[pood]

Tom, the majority of folks disagreeing with you are employed in STEM.

So?
Pood said that NASA doesn't know the meaning of water.

I confident that it's not true, it's a nonsensical dodge because science doesn't support feticide rights.

But, according to Pood, NASA doesn't understand water or life. Nevertheless, NASA is an authority, according to Pood.

Tom

The paper is not from NASA. It is by three chemists, who frankly probably know more about water than NASA does.

Did you actually READ the passage in question, and try to garner its point? Obviously not. You would prefer, it seems, to stuff straw and call me a liar and an ignoramus. Quite telling. I will note, though, that personal insults are against the rules here. I also note that you have ”staff member” under your user name.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Tom, the majority of folks disagreeing with you are employed in STEM.

So?
Pood said that NASA doesn't know the meaning of water.

I confident that it's not true, it's a nonsensical dodge because science doesn't support feticide rights.

But, according to Pood, NASA doesn't understand water or life. Nevertheless, NASA is an authority, according to Pood.

Tom

Jebus, is Eternal back?

 

[pood]

Tom, the majority of folks disagreeing with you are employed in STEM.

So?
Pood said that NASA doesn't know the meaning of water.

I confident that it's not true, it's a nonsensical dodge because science doesn't support feticide rights.

But, according to Pood, NASA doesn't understand water or life. Nevertheless, NASA is an authority, according to Pood.

Tom

I want to reiterate that absolutely none of the above is true.

The reference to water is not by NASA, but by three chemists, and put forth to emphasize a point I have already explained three times.

I did not say that NASA was an authority on this subject. I did not even imply it. The linked paper is not a NASA production.

You claim science ”doesn’t support feticide rights.” If by ”feticide rights,” you mean “abortion,“ you are wrong. ”Science” has no position on abortion because science is an enterprise and not a person. Only persons can have opinions, whether well or poorly supported. What is true is that there is no scientific consensus on the definition of life, and there certainly is no scientific support for the idea that fetuses are children.

 

[pood]

No, you are more often than not just posting one line quips, comparing people to slaveholders and YEC'ers, and insisting that "science" backs up your position (which hasn't actually been fully stated as of yet).

I don't think it was me who explained that NASA doesn't understand water!
Tom

Once again, to set the record straight, I never said that. Please actually read the paper (not by NASA) that I linked before mouthing off.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And I note the continued lack of a definition of exactly what attributes make something worthy of protection.

 

[TomC]

Once again, to set the record straight, I never said that. Please actually read the paper (not by NASA) that I linked before mouthing off.

I read your post.
It includes

The article then goes on to discuss how it is even impossible to define “water” in a complete way, still less life.

Now you're claiming that the article wasn't by NASA.

I honestly didn't think it was, but that is what you claimed. Or at least I thought you were claiming it, given

As the article explains, in 1994 a panel of experts convened by NASA

Why did you bring up NASA if was just some other unidentified ideologues?
Tom

 

[pood]

Once again, to set the record straight, I never said that. Please actually read the paper (not by NASA) that I linked before mouthing off.

I read your post.
It includes

The article then goes on to discuss how it is even impossible to define “water” in a complete way, still less life.

Now you're claiming that the article wasn't by NASA.

I honestly didn't think it was, but that is what you claimed. Or at least I thought you were claiming it, given

As the article explains, in 1994 a panel of experts convened by NASA

Why did you bring up NASA if was just some other unidentified ideologues?
Tom

Can you read? The paper, not by NASA, cites NASA as source for an attempt to define life, an attempt that the paper then critiques. I never claimed or implied that the paper was by NASA, and all of this is off point anyway. The point is that there is no scientific consensus on the definition of life and this demolishes your claim that science supports your position that women should be forced to bear children that they do not want.

 

[TomC]

Can you read? The paper, not by NASA, cites NASA as source for an attempt to define life, an attempt that the paper then critiques. I never claimed or implied that the paper was by NASA, and all of this is off point anyway. The point is that there is no scientific consensus on the definition of life and this demolishes your claim that science supports your position that women should be forced to bear children that they do not want.

Why did you attribute this to NASA?
Tom

 

[pood]

Can you read? The paper, not by NASA, cites NASA as source for an attempt to define life, an attempt that the paper then critiques. I never claimed or implied that the paper was by NASA, and all of this is off point anyway. The point is that there is no scientific consensus on the definition of life and this demolishes your claim that science supports your position that women should be forced to bear children that they do not want.

Why did you attribute this to NASA?
Tom

I did NOT attribute the paper to NASA. Here is what I wrote:

See here, for example. Note the section beginning, What is Life? As the article explains, in 1994 a panel of experts convened by NASA decided that life is a “chemical system capable of Darwinian evolution.”

The article does not even cite NASA. As I wrote, the article cites a panel of experts CONVENED by NASA to try to define life. The article then critiques the panel’s defintion, demonstrating the key point: there is no scientific consensus on the defintion of life, and so your attempt to invoke science, as though science were a univocal monolith, in support of your position that women ought to be forced to bear children that they do not want, is shown to be false.