Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. My attempt to interpret both sides[W:139, 451]

[Helix]

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

Moderator's Warning:

Stop insulting each other instead of discussing the topic. Even light baiting will result in a thread ban from this point forward.

 

[FutureIncoming]

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

[part 1 of 2, in reply to Msg #442]

No. Intrinsic value is the value of a commodity apart from it's market value.

FALSE. Intrinsic value does not exist. If there is a PERCEIVED value of something, then it is the perceiver that is Arbitrarily and Subjectively assigning that value to it. For example, depending on the picture in an oldish (not really old) photograph, someone might assign a high sentimental value to it --but it is unlikely that most other folks would assign significant value to it in the marketplace. All Valuations Are Arbitrary, Subjective, and Relative. No exceptions. If you want to claim "intrinsic value" exists, you need to do a MUCH better job of proving that claim, than you have done so far.

In this case the "Intrinsic value" is the value of an entire life versus the value of a transient state of pregnancy.

REALLY? What is the value of a rat's entire life, versus its value while in its mother's womb? The only reason human lives are claimed to have value, compared to rats, is that most humans have person-class minds, while rats don't. It takes significant investment to create a person-class mind, and right there is a source of value for it --the cost of the investment. Killing a person means the investment in that mind gets wasted. However, The Fact Is, unborn humans do not have any iota of person-class minds, and therefore unborn human lives are generally no more significant than rats' lives. The younger an unborn human, the less has been invested in an ANIMAL BODY, not a mind. If there is a goal of creating a new person-class mind, then that means someone is willing to keep investing in a human body for at least two years after conception. If no such goal is desired, then the logical thing to do is to abort as early as possible, and basically "stop throwing good investment after bad". One of the most despicable things about abortion opponents is their insistence that OTHER folks must invest in the unborn humans that the abortion opponents want to see born. Our culture generally expect folks who want something to pay for what they want, but Stupidly Hypocritical abortion opponents want others to pay for what abortion opponents want!

Also, I think you have some issues you need resolved regarding the whole idea of what it is to be a man.

NOT AT ALL. I'm quite aware that Nature has arranged things such that males are more expendable than females, in terms of survival-of-a-species. But the concept of "intrinsic value for humans" DENIES that Natural Fact, and insists that every human has equal intrinsic value. I simply showed that that that concept is actually inherently idiotic. Human lives PROVABLY have different valuations (per the "emergency" scenario mentioned in other message), and those valuations can change based on circumstances. Perhaps you should refresh your memory of the definition of the word "triage".

Feel free to be the guy that pushes past the women and children to get a seat on the life raft if you want, but don't be surprised if someone pushes you overboard in the process. Women are the most essential piece of civilization, and children are the essential part of the future of any civilization. Men are certainly important too, but our willing sacrifice for the women and children is our primary duty to civilization, and the species as a whole.

AND NONE OF THAT BLATHER HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE OXYMORONIC CONCEPT OF "INTRINSIC VALUE". It Does Not Exist. Period.

But nature is fun that way, if you end up being the guy that pushes past the women and children to get on the life raft you will eventually find that the list of women willing to procreate with you is limited or non-existent so nature will deselect you for breeding either way.

AGAIN, not relevant to the concept of "intrinsic value". You are simply proving over and over again how humans can be assigned different valuations on different occasions. Meanwhile, if something actually had an intrinsic value, That Value Would Never Change.

This is a rather overused analogy that falls apart under even simple scrutiny.

WRONG. You are Denying Fact, that the Verifiable State of brain death is a situation from which there is ZERO chance of recovery for the person-class mind that had been associated with that body. Any cases you might specify, from which someone SUPPOSEDLY recovered from a diagnosis of brain death is in actuality a case of mis-diagnosis.

 

[FutureIncoming]

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

[part 2 of 2, in reply to Msg #442]

If you want to equate a brain-dead adult to an unborn [human animal parasitic assailant]

WHICH I CAN DO BY SPECIFYING ONLY THE PRESENT, NOT THE FUTURE. An unborn human is what it right-now is, and is not-at-all the thing it has potential to become. A brain-dead adult on full life-support is also what it right-now is, regardless of the fact that it has no potential to become something more than that.

ANY BLATHERING ABOUT "POTENTIAL" IS IRRATIONAL. That's because if you stand at the top of a long staircase, you have the potential to fall and break your neck. MUST a potential be fulfilled, simply because it exists? NOT IN THE SLIGHTEST!

then you have to also accept the FULL analogy

NOPE; See above about the idiocy of blathering about "potential".

that would be that the brain-dead adult would be constantly in a state of observable recovery from the moment they went on life support.

FALSE. Brain death is brain death, and there is NO recovery from that. By Definition. What you are trying do do is claim that because the unborn human has potential, any comparison of it to a brain-dead adult must include the assumption that the adult has potential, too, and I've already specifically pointed out that that is not the case. It is quite possible to compare present situations only.

So that analogy you use would also be used to argue that we should be able to pull the plug of a brain-dead patient who was expected to make a full recovery AND live, on average, another 70+ years...

I DO NOT USE ANY SUCH IRRATIONAL ANALOGY. As detailed above. And as usual, it is the abortion opponent who blathers irrationality and nonsense. Tsk, tsk!

Yeah, trying to paint the life as a terminal illness doesn't fly.

YOUR MISREPRESENTATION OF WHAT I WROTE GETS YOU NOWHERE. Natural parasites are only sometimes equated with terminal illnesses --in Evolutionary terms, what good does it do a parasite to have offspring that need hosts which the parents of those offspring killed? Therefore an unborn human, while it ACTS worse than any ordinary parasite, is not normally equated with a terminal illness --but it most certainly almost always does cause illness! (morning sickness).

I realize that there is a small subset of pro-choice people who want to argue it that way but it isn't a winning argument.

YOUR MERE CLAIM IS WORTHLESS WITHOUT EVIDENCE. And I'm not talking about your claim that YOUR misrepresentation of what I wrote is not a winning argument; I'm talking about the Facts I presented (and linked) being part of a winning argument. It Is A Fact that unborn humans act worse than parasites. It Is A Fact that we routinely kill parasites, simply because no victim of a parasite is required to be subjected to the assaults of the parasite. It Is A Fact that abortion qualifies as killing an entity that acts worse than a parasite. And It Is A Fact that no pregnant woman is required to be subjected to the assaults of an entity that acts worse than a parasite, simply because abortion is legal!

Also, describing human life in the womb as an alien parasite is

MORE MISREPRESENTATION. An unborn human is 100% a human entity. But it just so happens that that entity ACTS worse than any ordinary parasite. Facts are Facts, not the lies you have blathered about what I wrote.

precisely the kind of dehumanization I was talking about earlier.

AND YOU ARE THE ONE DOING THAT DEHUMANIZATION, NOT I. Because you are the one blathering lies about what I actually wrote.

You are definitely in the sub-sub-subset of pro-choice people who are willing to admit that the unborn are human beings

FALSE. Nowhere do I accept the Provably Idiotic Claim that an unborn human qualifies as a "being". It is a 100% human animal entity only. Just like a brain-dead adult on life-support. Just like a human hydatidiform mole (which by the way originates as a fertilized ovum, the same as an ordinary human embryo). And just like a human cuticle cell, which is killed by the hundred during ordinary manicures and pedicures.

but still free to kill as we see fit.

BECAUSE ABORTION TARGETS ANIMAL-CLASS ENTITIES, NOT PERSONS. Not "beings". If you want to claim that an unborn human qualifies as a "being", in the same way that a True Artificial Intelligence, or an intelligent extraterrestrial alien might qualify as a "being", Let's See You Support That Claim With Evidence!

 

[FutureIncoming]

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

You're confusing Original Source with Original Research. Why am I not surprised?

Since when is an Original Source NOT also Original Research? I know exactly what I'm talking about; Wikipedia forbids relying on original sources because they are also original/unverified research. Wikipedia wants secondary sources that refer to and support (as in "verify") the claims made in the original sources.

Oh, and your link? That has nothing to do with PubMed, which is the US govt. clearinghouse for peer-reviewed medical science articles. Their requirements are very strict.

ARE YOU CLAIMING PUBMED IS THE ONLY VALID SOURCE FOR DATA? Not to mention, the more that someone claims that some source of scientific papers is trustworthy, the more that some hacker will try to prove them wrong. For all you know, it has already been done, and the bad papers simply haven't been discovered yet. And the link I presented was about recent events generally, to support the the thing that I had written. I did not write something claiming PubMed had been the target. Peer Review is nowhere near as important as independent verification --THAT'S the main point I've been working toward supporting.

Everyone wants reliable sources -- not blog crap like you post from.

THE MAIN BLOG THAT I REFERENCE IS MY OWN. And as I previously told you, I use the data there as an extension of what I post here, to save space here. You might not like the non-blog links there any more than you like the non-blog links I post here, but at least I do find links supporting what I claim. It is not mere say-so on my part!

The placenta thing is nonsensical.

THAT IS A CLAIM. Where is any evidence supporting that claim? Why should anyone believe your claim if you don't support it with evidence? Especially since you have made a Positive Claim!

The virgin birth thing is nonsensical.

THAT IS A CLAIM. Where is any evidence supporting that claim? Why should anyone believe your claim if you don't support it with evidence? Especially since you have made a Positive Claim!

In fact, your first paragraph in the post I'm responding to now is nonsensical. You didn't understand the difference between Original Source and Original Research

A STUPID LIE. As explained above.

and then you went way off in left field and cited a story that had nothing to do with PubMed, which has very strict standards.

AGAIN, SEE ABOVE. You can't seriously expect everyone Debating here to ONLY use PubMed as a source! And therefore I talked in terms of generalities.

Virtually everything you post is nonsensical.

THAT IS A CLAIM. Where is any evidence supporting that claim? Why should anyone believe your claim if you don't support it with evidence? Especially since you have made a Positive Claim!

 

[joG]

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

Abortion is legsl.

What you said is irrelevant.

For those that do not think about it, I am quite sure it would appear so. That is exactly the standpoint that Chinese peasants took, when Mao bid them by law to beat their intellectual neighbors to death. I their case it was ignorance brought on by lack of informational freedom and educational shortfalls.

 

[HowardBThiname]

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

Since when is an Original Source NOT also Original Research? I know exactly what I'm talking about; Wikipedia forbids relying on original sources because they are also original/unverified research. Wikipedia wants secondary sources that refer to and support (as in "verify") the claims made in the original sources.

Since the topic of abortion often centers on actual research I think this is important to know. "Original research" is research done by the writer of the information, and Wikipedia is user-generate. That means you can add to a Wikipedia topic, but you would not be able to use your placenta theory because that would be your original research.

From your Wikipedia link, they define original research as "Material for which no reliable source can be found is considered original research."

But, if you look a bit lower, you'll find that the following are considered to be "reliable:"

"In general, the most reliable sources are:

Peer-reviewed journals
Books published by university presses
University-level textbooks
Magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses
Mainstream newspapers

That's why I asked you for peer-reviewed articles. In a medical topic, the link I gave you to PubMed, hosts all the articles you need to back your arguments. Your "original research" of the placenta theory would not be suitable.

Just to show that Original Source is different, let's look at what Wikipedia calls a Primary Source (same thing):

In the study of history as an academic discipline, a primary source (also called original source or evidence) is an artifact, a document, diary, manuscript, autobiography, a recording, or any other source of information that was created at the time under study. It serves as an original source of information about the topic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_source

So -- there's the difference. And, it's an important difference.

ARE YOU CLAIMING PUBMED IS THE ONLY VALID SOURCE FOR DATA? Not to mention, the more that someone claims that some source of scientific papers is trustworthy, the more that some hacker will try to prove them wrong. For all you know, it has already been done, and the bad papers simply haven't been discovered yet. And the link I presented was about recent events generally, to support the the thing that I had written. I did not write something claiming PubMed had been the target. Peer Review is nowhere near as important as independent verification --THAT'S the main point I've been working toward supporting.

Peer-review is extremely important for the reasons cited above.

THE MAIN BLOG THAT I REFERENCE IS MY OWN. And as I previously told you, I use the data there as an extension of what I post here, to save space here. You might not like the non-blog links there any more than you like the non-blog links I post here, but at least I do find links supporting what I claim. It is not mere say-so on my part!

Just an FYI, your opinions are every bit of valid as anyone else's but don't reference your blog because it can't be used as evidence. Instead, spell out your opinions every time, in your own words -- again -- and say it's just your opinion. That's always fine, you may be challenged on it -- but you can stick to the fact that its' your opinion. PubMed is the biggest clearing house of peer-reviewed medical journals. It's the top of the top. It's where other writers get their information, because there are studies and research to back up the claims.

AGAIN, SEE ABOVE. You can't seriously expect everyone Debating here to ONLY use PubMed as a source! And therefore I talked in terms of generalities.

You don't have to use ONLY PubMed, I just gave you the most reliable source around for reliable abortion information. You can always cite something like a CNN article, but then we're left trying to figure out where that writer got his information and having to track it down. If it's valid, it will most likely be on PubMed.

I'm not coming down on you, but I think your level of discourse will go way up if you use better sources, because they've already been tested and proven. Your placenta theory is original research and therefor not real evidence.

Of course you could always try to get your theory peer-reviewed. You could write up your argument (there's a specific style for doing that if you want to) and get other professionals to read it and approve of it, then apply to have it published in an academic journal. If you could get three or four professionals to agree that your theory has merit, they'll sign off and you're on your way.

But right now, your theory is exactly what even Wikipedia won't print. It's Original Research.

 

[Bodi]

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

For those that do not think about it, I am quite sure it would appear so. That is exactly the standpoint that Chinese peasants took, when Mao bid them by law to beat their intellectual neighbors to death. I their case it was ignorance brought on by lack of informational freedom and educational shortfalls.

Abortion is legal.

Mao on the other hand...

Is completely irrelevant.

 

[joG]

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

Abortion is legal.

Mao on the other hand...

Is completely irrelevant.

It must feel good to live in such a simplistic world. But it is so sad to see how much you miss.

 

[jmotivator]

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

FALSE. Intrinsic value does not exist.

Obviously we can't carry on a conversation when you refuse to accept that there are words that have meanings.

in·trin·sic
inˈtrinzik,inˈtrinsik/
adjective
adjective: intrinsic

belonging naturally; essential.

Intrinsic value

In a moral sense the "intrinsic value" of a person is the fundamental building block of natural rights and the system of law. If human beings have no intrinsic value then their lives are at the whim of what subjective value the prevailing authroity puts on them. The latter position is the one held by the Soviet Union and the Third Reich which held the belief that human life held no intrinsic value, and the lives of its subjects were granted at the whim of the state.

Both states ended up failing miserably because, as it turns out, human life has intrinsic value and the world rallied to overthrow those ideologies like a body's immune system attacks a virus.. No matter how hard they tried they could not convince the world or their own population that they and those they knew and loved had no value if the state deemed it so.

 

[FutureIncoming]

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

Since the topic of abortion often centers on actual research I think this is important to know. "Original research" is research done by the writer of the information, and Wikipedia is user-generate. That means you can add to a Wikipedia topic, but you would not be able to use your placenta theory because that would be your original research ....

I'M AWARE OF THAT. I also know of specific examples of stuff that Wikipedia editors declined to include, simply because the Original Publication, despite its source in a well-recognized peer-reviewed journal, was also not yet supported in any secondary publication. And as a variation on that theme, consider Isaac Newton's Principia --were there any peers of the time associated with its publication? Just barely... but all that means, is some folks didn't think it was nonsense. (That actually happened to me, once. I sent a wild idea about an aspect of modern physics to a particular place, ONLY hoping for some feedback, and they published it. Some feedback!)

I suspect that no matter what a particular claim is, some folks will agree with it (which could lead to publication), and others will denounce it. Which basically indicates nothing about its Objective Validity.

Peer-review is extremely important for the reasons cited above.

NOT SO IMPORTANT, as explained above! You can publish anything if you can find some like-minded folks who have a printing press (or modern equivalent).

Just an FYI, your opinions are every bit of valid as anyone else's but don't reference your blog because it can't be used as evidence.

NOW YOU ARE DELIBERATELY IGNORING A POINT I MADE. I don't call the sentences I wrote there "evidence"; the EXTERNAL PAGES LINKED FROM THERE are the evidence! All I'm doing here is saving space (and preventing some tedious repetition), by referring to the easily-accessed additional and more-detailed info there.

Instead, spell out your opinions every time, in your own words -- again -- and say it's just your opinion. That's always fine, you may be challenged on it -- but you can stick to the fact that its' your opinion.

WHEN AN OPINION IS SUPPORTED WITH EVIDENCE, it is no longer JUST an opinion. Enough evidence can cause it to join the exalted ranks of "Theory" (which is a rather higher rank than "Hypothesis").

PubMed is the biggest clearing house of peer-reviewed medical journals. It's the top of the top. It's where other writers get their information, because there are studies and research to back up the claims.

OFTEN TRUE. Except --for a time-- when something original gets published.

You don't have to use ONLY PubMed, ...

RIGHT. And I don't. I've linked lots of different sources, sometimes including PubMed. Here are two that are not directly PubMed, but still might be listed via PubMed.

Your placenta theory is original research and therefor not real evidence.

THE WAY DATA GETS ASSEMBLED INTO EITHER OPINION OR HYPOTHESIS OR THEORY IN NO WAY AFFECTS THE ACTUAL DATA THAT GOT ASSEMBLED. Much of the placenta has been PROVED by DNA tests to be part of an overall unborn human, just like the umbilical cord and the amniotic sac are also parts of the overall unborn human. And here's a PubMed link regarding things the placenta does for an unborn human (which includes producing hormones that keep the woman's body from detaching HER part of the placenta from her womb). An unborn human cannot survive without its placenta, any more than it can survive without a heart. It is not "just a feeding tube"!

But right now, your theory is exactly what even Wikipedia won't print. It's Original Research.

NOT SO IMPORTANT AT THIS DEBATE SITE. I remind you of Rule 5 on this list, and its use of the word "reasonable".

 

[HowardBThiname]

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

NOT SO IMPORTANT, as explained above! You can publish anything if you can find some like-minded folks who have a printing press (or modern equivalent).

That's incorrect. The academic standards are very high. It doesn't matter if "like-minded" folks have a printing press or whether they agree with you. You must have respected SCHOLARS in their respected fields vet your theory before it will be published in an academic journal.

WHEN AN OPINION IS SUPPORTED WITH EVIDENCE, it is no longer JUST an opinion. Enough evidence can cause it to join the exalted ranks of "Theory" (which is a rather higher rank than "Hypothesis").

That's not really the way it works.

RIGHT. And I don't. I've linked lots of different sources, sometimes including PubMed. Here are two that are not directly PubMed, but still might be listed via PubMed.

And when you cite good sources -- I'll be sure to look at them. I won't click through to blogs and other dubious sources though.

NOT SO IMPORTANT AT THIS DEBATE SITE. I remind you of Rule 5 on this list, and its use of the word "reasonable".

From your link -- this really says it all.

"In order to establish an assertion, the team must support it with enough evidence and logic to convince an intelligent but previously uninformed person that it is more reasonable to believe the assertion than to disbelieve it."

This is where earlier assertions have fallen short.

 

[FutureIncoming]

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

Obviously we can't carry on a conversation when you refuse to accept that there are words that have meanings.

THE PHRASE "MILITARY INTELLIGENCE" HAS MEANING, TOO. Though many laugh at its oxymoronic-ness. "Intrinsic value" is just another worthless oxymoron.

in·trin·sic inˈtrinzik,inˈtrinsik/ adjective adjective: intrinsic belonging naturally; essential.

CORRECT. The hardness of a diamond is an intrinsic property of a diamond. No diamond can exist without also having that hardness, and that hardness is Objectively Observable --any observer can detect it --furthermore, any observer can detect THE SAME MAGNITUDE of hardness of a diamond.

MEANWHILE, valuations are Subjective, Relative, and Arbitrary. No exceptions. If you place a dung beetle in-between a pile of dung, and an equal-sized perfectly cut diamond, guess which item the dung beetle will consider to be valuable? We can imagine the beetle glancing at the diamond and thinking, "That ain't worth s***!"

Intrinsic value In a moral sense

STOP RIGHT THERE. Because morals are ALSO Subjective, Relative, and Arbitrary. For proof, just go to a bunch of different cultures and ask whether or not it is moral to drink alcohol, or to eat pork, or for a woman's head to be uncovered.

AND SO I PROMOTE ETHICS. Because ethics has a chance of being Objective, Non-Arbitrary, and Universally Applicable. (And ethics doesn't need any hint of the idiocy called "intrinsic value", either.)

the "intrinsic value" of a person is the fundamental building block of natural rights

PROPAGANDA. There is only one truly Natural Right --a right to try. In Nature, every living thing has a right to try to accomplish things (like survive). But There Is No Such Thing As A Right To Succeed. All other "rights" are pure inventions (often useful tools, though).

and the system of law.

ANOTHER ARBITRARY AND SUBJECTIVE AND RELATIVE THING. Usually. Especially when based on "morals", instead of Objective Facts.

If human beings have no intrinsic value then their lives are at the whim of what subjective value the prevailing authroity puts on them.

ONLY IN A SYSTEM DEPENDING ON ARBITRARY MORALS. Because, guess what! It was Authority that defined in the first place what eventually got called "moral"! (see definition of "arbitrary")

The latter position is the one held by the Soviet Union and the Third Reich

AND THE HEBREWS THAT INVADED CANAAN. And the Spanish Inquisition. And everyone opposing the Protestant Reformation. And the Traditional Chinese. And many Serbs. The idiocy associated with the word "moral" is worldwide and very ancient.

which held the belief that human life held no intrinsic value,

FACTS ARE FACTS. "intrinsic value" played NO part in all the genocides committed by Religions in history (the Nazis claimed to be Christians, remember).

and the lives of its subjects were granted at the whim of the state.

OBVIOUSLY FLAWED, as proved by History. Which means something better is needed. A system of ethics depends on an Objectively Verifiable foundation-statement. EXAMPLE: "Persons need to get-along with each other for maximum mutual benefits." We have vast amounts of historical evidence showing what happens when people do or don't get-along with each other, and who benefited from that, and whether or not the benefits were mutual. And so I think you are likely to agree that that example "foundation statement" is Objectively Valid. Note that an Objectively Valid statement is going to be valid anywhere in the Universe. So, now all we need to do is devise a set of rules that are consistent with the foundation-statement. That would make those rules Logical, instead of Arbitrary. (So see what I wrote above, "ethics has a chance of being Objective, Non-Arbitrary, and Universally Applicable".) Many of the ethics-derived rules are likely to be the same as rules commonly linked to "morals" --murder is obviously about persons NOT getting-along with each other, and so cannot be allowed.

Both states ended up failing miserably because,

OTHER FOLKS DISAGREED WITH WHAT THEY CALLED "MORAL".

 

[Removable Mind]

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

Obviously we can't carry on a conversation when you refuse to accept that there are words that have meanings.

in·trin·sic
inˈtrinzik,inˈtrinsik/
adjective
adjective: intrinsic

belonging naturally; essential.

Intrinsic value

In a moral sense the "intrinsic value" of a person is the fundamental building block of natural rights and the system of law. If human beings have no intrinsic value then their lives are at the whim of what subjective value the prevailing authroity puts on them. The latter position is the one held by the Soviet Union and the Third Reich which held the belief that human life held no intrinsic value, and the lives of its subjects were granted at the whim of the state.

Both states ended up failing miserably because, as it turns out, human life has intrinsic value and the world rallied to overthrow those ideologies like a body's immune system attacks a virus.. No matter how hard they tried they could not convince the world or their own population that they and those they knew and loved had no value if the state deemed it so.

Just like the notion that there is "right to life" for all stages of human life, "intrinsic value" is now being tossed into the ring of antiquated myths about human attributes.

What natural rights are you alluding to? Simply coming into existence via circumstance of birth automatically manifests human rights by what source?

It's time to rid ourselves of the term "natural rights" and develop a substantially more concrete way of viewing human rights and their origin. The word "natural" isn't nearly as unambiguous as some people portray it to be in context to its application regarding "rights". Over the course of human evolution, logic and moral reasoning has made great strides to replaced magical thinking.

Mere common sense allows us to evaluate various behaviors and draw conclusions, which, over the course of human existence, that there must be fundamental rules of survival, which has driven untold generations of individuals, families, clans, tribes, communities, and societies to establish more formal methods to falcilitate the biology mechanism that promotes proliferation (found in virtually all species of life).

 

[FutureIncoming]

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

That's incorrect. The academic standards are very high.

ONLY FOR SOME PUBLICATIONS. Others, not so much. Yes, I know that is why some publications are more-respected than others. Meanwhile, a brand-new publisher might have high standards but no reputation at all, since brand-new. And why would they receive stuff to publish? "Lead times". Other publications are so swamped with papers that authors often have to wait years to see their papers in print. That creates demand for additional publishers. YOU, apparently, would reject anything published by them, even if they did have high standards, simply because of the lack of a reputation. Tsk, tsk!

ALSO, YOU APPEARED TO IGNORE PART OF WHAT I WROTE. I specified "like-minded folks". (note how that qualifies as a definition of "peers") How is it that "white supremacist" stuff gets published? Because some publishers are white supremacists, DUUUHHH! In the Overall Abortion Debate, there are extremists on both sides, and I'm fairly sure you would agree that if I looked hard enough, I could find someone who would formally publish that "placenta argument". While we both know publication would not change any degree of whatever level of Objective Validity that argument might have, it WOULD qualify as having been "approved by peers", the like-minded folks who published it.

It doesn't matter if "like-minded" folks have a printing press or whether they agree with you.

YOU WOULD BE SURPRISED HOW MANY FOLKS RESPECT SOMETHING THAT THEY CAN HOLD IN THEIR HANDS, that got formally published. That would be the group described this way: "You can fool some of the people all of the time...."

You must have respected SCHOLARS in their respected fields vet your theory before it will be published in an academic journal.

UNLESS THE JOURNAL IS FRAUDULENT. As has been discovered in recent years. Several times. If you Google for [ fraudulent journal ] (brackets represent search box) you can get over a million results.

That's not really the way it works.

YET VERY OFTEN RESEARCHERS FORM OPINIONS AND THEN TRY TO FIND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE. Pretty much what anyone in a Debate does!

And when you cite good sources -- I'll be sure to look at them. I won't click through to blogs and other dubious sources though.

BUT HOW CAN YOU TELL IN ADVANCE OF CLICKING THE LINK? Here's part of an article about child development (a good reference for arguments about "personhood") that was originally published in "Scientific American", but now is not easily accessible except via a site that has been claimed to be overly biased. The current source does not affect the original integrity of the article! But would you skip it JUST because of its current location? I found the whole article as part of this document --I have no idea what you might think of THAT location!

This is where earlier assertions have fallen short.

THAT IS A CLAIM. I don't see you explaining any details about how the placenta argument fails to be reasonable.

 

[Bodi]

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

It must feel good to live in such a simplistic world. But it is so sad to see how much you miss.

It seems you missed the Mod Warning...

 

[HowardBThiname]

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

ALSO, YOU APPEARED TO IGNORE PART OF WHAT I WROTE. I specified "like-minded folks". (note how that qualifies as a definition of "peers")

I don't have time to cover a lot of your points but those "like-minded folks" must be scholars respected in their fields.

How is it that "white supremacist" stuff gets published? Because some publishers are white supremacists, DUUUHHH!

This stuff never gets published in academic journals. You still don't understand what peer-review is.

UNLESS THE JOURNAL IS FRAUDULENT. As has been discovered in recent years. Several times. If you Google for [ fraudulent journal ] (brackets represent search box) you can get over a million results.

Which is why I linked you to the most RESPECTABLE medical journal clearinghouse.

YET VERY OFTEN RESEARCHERS FORM OPINIONS AND THEN TRY TO FIND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE. Pretty much what anyone in a Debate does!

I've judged high school debate more years than I can count and never would I accept supporting evidence from shoddy sources.

But, high school debate is child's play compared to peer-review.

THAT IS A CLAIM. I don't see you explaining any details about how the placenta argument fails to be reasonable.

I've explained to you why that theory fails. You can continue to push it -- but, I won't lower myself to those standards.

 

[jmotivator]

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

Just like the notion that there is "right to life" for all stages of human life, "intrinsic value" is now being tossed into the ring of antiquated myths about human attributes.

No, I never said anything close to that. I stated that human life has intrinsic value.

What natural rights are you alluding to? Simply coming into existence via circumstance of birth automatically manifests human rights by what source?

What is your source for your rights? Are you saying you have none?

It's time to rid ourselves of the term "natural rights" and develop a substantially more concrete way of viewing human rights and their origin. The word "natural" isn't nearly as unambiguous as some people portray it to be in context to its application regarding "rights". Over the course of human evolution, logic and moral reasoning has made great strides to replaced magical thinking.

LOL. I love the built in naivete of those who think there is a foundation for human rights more solid than natural rights. There is no more fundamental justification than natural rights. If you believe that the rights you enjoy are something other than inalienable then you have no grounds, philosophical or otherwise, to challenge the authority of a state that has decided that you have no rights.

Mere common sense allows us to evaluate various behaviors and draw conclusions, which, over the course of human existence, that there must be fundamental rules of survival, which has driven untold generations of individuals, families, clans, tribes, communities, and societies to establish more formal methods to facilitate the biology mechanism that promotes proliferation (found in virtually all species of life).

Yesm that common sense has a name: Natural rights. They are the most basic of civil expectations that an individual can have, and have been the root of human civilization and law for all of history. When some well meaning people decide that they can throw that out for a new and better paradigm where like-minded, happy people agree to a more malleable view of human rights you can be pretty sure of one thing: It will end in blood and mayhem.

 

[jmotivator]

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

THE PHRASE "MILITARY INTELLIGENCE" HAS MEANING, TOO. Though many laugh at its oxymoronic-ness. "Intrinsic value" is just another worthless oxymoron.

The average IQ of Military officers is 116. Also you have to ignore the operable definition of the word "Intelligence" in that phrase to arrive at your ironically inept meme.

 

[Removable Mind]

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

No, I never said anything close to that. I stated that human life has intrinsic value.



What is your source for your rights? Are you saying you have none?




LOL. I love the built in naivete of those who think there is a foundation for human rights more solid than natural rights. There is no more fundamental justification than natural rights. If you believe that the rights you enjoy are something other than inalienable then you have no grounds, philosophical or otherwise, to challenge the authority of a state that has decided that you have no rights.



Yes that common sense has a name: Natural rights. They are the most basic of civil expectations that an individual can have, and have been the root of human civilization and law for all of history. When some well meaning people decide that they can throw that out for a new and better paradigm where like-minded, happy people agree to a more malleable view of human rights you can be pretty sure of one thing: It will end in blood and mayhem.

You are the first person I've seen post that they "believe" or more specifically, agree "natural rights" are a derivative of human common sense. But then you raise "inalienable". How is common sense and inalienable related?

 

[Fearandloathing]

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

No, I never said anything close to that. I stated that human life has intrinsic value.



What is your source for your rights? Are you saying you have none?




LOL. I love the built in naivete of te who think there is a foundation for human rights more solid than natural rights. There is no more fundamental justification than natural rights. If you believe that the rights you enjoy are something other than inalienable then you have no grounds, philosophical or otherwise, to challenge the authority of a state that has decided that you have no rights.



Yesm that common sense has a name: Natural rights. They are the most basic of civil expectations that an individual can have, and have been the root of human civilization and law for all of history. When some well meaning people decide that they can throw that out for a new and better paradigm where like-minded, happy people agree to a more malleable view of human rights you can be pretty sure of one thing: It will end in blood and mayhem.

The concept of "rights" begin where? Who was the first to discuss such "rights" and how were they applied?

I believe it was Plato who first began the thinking which evolved. So it hasn't been "all of history" but a philosophical construct to identify the value of life, or as some put it 'why we are here."

"Rights" were non existent for the main body of humans in the middle ages, the only recognized right belonged to kings and popes. Where were the "rights' of the indigenous people in the 1800's. Women in most of the world have no rights at all.

Rights are not natural, and not universal, they are hard earned with blood. And they can be ****-canned in a New York minute. Should rights be universal? Of course. Will they ever be......................?

 

[FutureIncoming]

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

The average IQ of Military officers is 116. Also you have to ignore the operable definition of the word "Intelligence" in that phrase to arrive at your ironically inept meme.

I DIDN'T INVENT THAT MEME. And it only takes one lower-than-average-intelligence military officer to start a fight. Smart folks can generally figure out how to avoid fights --which implies they shouldn't want to be in the military, or feel a need for the military to exist (except for the obvious benefits terms of dumb brutes killing each other, removing their lesser intelligence from the gene pool). And regarding the "operable definition", we are talking about spies, yet we are also talking about military folks on-duty and out-of-uniform. Their own rules make the situation laughable!

MEANWHILE, back at The Overall Abortion Debate, it is clear that abortion opponents are less intelligent than pro-choicers. Overpopulation is a major historical cause of wars --but abortion opponents insist on promoting overpopulation. Tsk, tsk!

(And, hey, HowardBThiname, that was a PubMed link!)

 

[FutureIncoming]

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

I stated that human life has intrinsic value.

YES, THAT IS WHAT YOU ERRONEOUSLY CLAIMED. But you cannot support that claim with any Objectively Valid Evidence, whatsoever. Simply because there is actually no such thing as "intrinsic value" --and even if it did exist, it is easy to prove humans don't have it. Which I did.

What is your source for your rights? Are you saying you have none?

RIGHTS EXIST SIMPLY BECAUSE PERSONS CLAIM THEM AND OTHER PERSONS LET THEM GET AWAY WITH IT. Often because the other persons are making the same claims for themselves. Many problems are the result of various folks claiming to have some right that other folks don't let them get away with. Like bank robbers seem to think they have the right to do that. Like abortion opponents claiming unborn human animals have the right to enslave grown women, persons, and treat them as pantries and toilets. Like Religions claiming there is such a thing as a "right to breed" (even though about 1/7 of all couples are Naturally infertile). And so on.

LOL. I love the built in naivete of those who think there is a foundation for human rights more solid than natural rights.

SINCE MOST SO-CALLED "NATURAL RIGHTS" DON'T EXIST, any more than "intrinsic value" exists, it is most certainly possible for there to be a better foundation for rights. However the phrase "human rights" is Stupidly Prejudiced and thus worthless. What about rights for persons that aren't human? Are you going to claim that when a flying saucer lands and a friendly extraterrestrial emerges, that entity is fair game for arbitrary shooting, simply because of not being human? The Stupid Prejudice of abortion opponents is even worse than their promotion of slavery for pregnant women!

There is no more fundamental justification than natural rights.

STUPIDLY FALSE, since there is only one Natural Right (a "right to try"), and absolutely no others. All notions regarding any other rights are simply figments of persons' imaginations.

If you believe that the rights you enjoy are something other than inalienable then you have no grounds, philosophical or otherwise, to challenge the authority of a state that has decided that you have no rights.

STUPIDLY FALSE. Rights exist because persons claim them and others let them get away with it. This notion can be formalized in something known as a "Social Contract". The first ten Amendments to the US Constitution ("Bill of Rights") shaped that document into more than just a description of a government system; it also became a Social Contract. And the word "inalienable" does not get used (it gets used in the Declaration of Independence, which is NOT the Law of the Land).

Yesm that common sense has a name: Natural rights.

NOPE; THE NAME IS "COMMON SENSE". Natural rights don't exist (except for the right to try). Nature only cares about what works, not what happens to individual living entities while it works. You might as well say the Aedes aegypti mosquito has a right to suck human blood, since it is evolved to do that thing. But The Actual Fact Is, it only has the right to try to do that thing; it has no right, Natural or otherwise, to succeed. So, here's a relevant Ben Franklin quote.

MOST RIGHTS ARE SIMPLY TOOLS PEOPLE CREATED TO HELP PEOPLE GET-ALONG WITH EACH OTHER BETTER. That's all. Period.

 

[FutureIncoming]

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

I don't have time to cover a lot of your points but those "like-minded folks" must be scholars respected in their fields.

NO THEY DON'T. Not to have the ability to run a printing press. The problem is, books have been perceived as valuable that anything published in an actual book (or journal) almost automatically is granted, by average members of society, some aspect of "quality". YOU YOURSELF, by harping on how experts and scholars should be involved, help the average person to think, when encountering a publication, that the material in that publication must have something going for it, else it would not have been published. Both peer-reviewers and editors supposedly weed out the dross, remember?

WHICH GIVES ANYONE WANTING TO PUBLISH PROPAGANDA AN OPPORTUNITY, an opportunity to blather nonsense that is not immediately widely perceived as being nonsense. Simply because it got formally published.

IF YOU ENCOUNTER a publication you never heard of before, how do you determine whether or not it meets your standards of quality?

This stuff never gets published in academic journals. You still don't understand what peer-review is.

AND A FAKE JOURNAL CAN LOOK LIKE A REAL JOURNAL. How do YOU tell the difference? What if there is an article in it that appeals to your personal bias, but later turns out to be flawed? And as for an article that goes against your personal bias....just think of the history of publications of articles about Global Warming, and the corporate and political backlash, simply because the scientific data indicated various humans needed to stop making money from fossil fuels. But All The Denunciations In The World Have Not Changed The Facts About Global Warming --and so two massive hurricanes just recently as I write this impacted the USA.

Your denunciations about my placenta argument don't change the Facts, either. You have CLAIMED:

I've explained to you why that theory fails.

BUT YOU ACTUALLY FAILED TO SUCCEED AT DOING THAT THING. Because I refuted the points you raised. Like, for example, in the last part of this message. And so I'm waiting to you to present a VALID refutation of that argument.

 

[GEIxBattleRifle]

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

He hasn't been here in a long time. I didn't know you are pro infanticide. Ok, so one person currently posting is.

Look through his recent posts in the abortion section and you'll see he is for infanticide.

 

[HowardBThiname]

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

NO THEY DON'T. Not to have the ability to run a printing press.

To be "peer-reviewed" the peers must be scholars. You injected the "book" idea and it is off-topic.

WHICH GIVES ANYONE WANTING TO PUBLISH PROPAGANDA AN OPPORTUNITY, an opportunity to blather nonsense that is not immediately widely perceived as being nonsense. Simply because it got formally published.

This, too, is off-topic.

IF YOU ENCOUNTER a publication you never heard of before, how do you determine whether or not it meets your standards of quality?

I ascertain both the quality of the material and the expertise of the author.

AND A FAKE JOURNAL CAN LOOK LIKE A REAL JOURNAL. How do YOU tell the difference? What if there is an article in it that appeals to your personal bias, but later turns out to be flawed? And as for an article that goes against your personal bias....just think of the history of publications of articles about Global Warming, and the corporate and political backlash, simply because the scientific data indicated various humans needed to stop making money from fossil fuels. But All The Denunciations In The World Have Not Changed The Facts About Global Warming --and so two massive hurricanes just recently as I write this impacted the USA.

Know your sources. An article in the JAMA is more likely to be legit than an article on Huffington Post. Check out the author -- anyone can claim to be a doctor, but only real doctors appear on state license lists. Check the article's sources -- if an author cites an article in JAMA, it will appear on PubMed. If the author's sources turn out to be blog's he's written, unless he's a renown medical scientist, you can be fairly sure the article is fantasy fluff. Check to see if other reputable publications are running the story. If not, you should suspect its veracity.

Don't drag outside topics into this. This is about ascertaining the difference between good and bad sources for the abortion debate -- global warming has no place here.

Your denunciations about my placenta argument don't change the Facts, either.

Apply the above criteria to your theory. Is it published in a reputable journal? No. Is the author a credible expert? No. Are the author's sources credible? No. Are any reputable journals running the story? No.

We've also ascertained that no reputable pro-choice advocate is using the theory, and we've also determined that the average citizen is unlikely to either care or recognize it based on the surveys done that track the reasons women abort. No woman has ever cited your placenta theory as her reason for aborting -- translation -- it's unlikely to ever get traction outside your posts here or your blog.