Do crime statistics justify prejudice in policing? And what is the solution to the discrepancies?

[nakedfrog]

That is the opposite of arbitrary. It's a precisely defined scientific fact for us and any other mammal.

Science precisely defines at what point an embryo or fetus is specifically designated as a human being?


Mmm, I think I'll have a delicious chicken for dinner.

 

[Atreus21]

Science precisely defines at what point an embryo or fetus is specifically designated as a human being?


Mmm, I think I'll have a delicious chicken for dinner.

“The conclusion that human life begins at sperm-egg fusion is uncontested, objective, based on the universally accepted scientific method of distinguishing different cell types from each other and on ample scientific evidence—thousands of independent, peer-reviewed publications.” Dr. Maureen Condic, associate professor in the Department of Neurobiology and Anatomy at the University of Utah Health (2014)

"Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being—a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings." Report, Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, 97th Congress, 1st Session 1981, 7.

Any embryology textbook attests to this. It is incumbent upon abortion proponents to explain to us on what basis this science is ill-founded.

 

[nakedfrog]

“The conclusion that human life begins at sperm-egg fusion is uncontested, objective, based on the universally accepted scientific method of distinguishing different cell types from each other and on ample scientific evidence—thousands of independent, peer-reviewed publications.” Dr. Maureen Condic, associate professor in the Department of Neurobiology and Anatomy at the University of Utah Health (2014)

Any embryology textbook attests to this. It is incumbent upon abortion proponents to explain to us on what basis this science (not to mention common sense) is ill-founded.

Common sense tells me that a zygote is not a human being.

 

[brycejones]

That is the opposite of arbitrary. It's a precisely defined scientific fact for us and any other mammal.

It’s cute when you dishonestly try to reframe the argument.

Not really

 

[Atreus21]

Common sense tells me that a zygote is not a human being.

Well, perhaps I should exclude common sense from my last post. Common sense can be subjective.

 

[nakedfrog]

Well, perhaps I should exclude common sense from my last post. Common sense can be subjective.

Also note your vaunted science says "human life", not "a new human being is created". Maybe don't pretend science supports your viewpoint.

 

[Paratus]

None of which are killed deliberately. You seem to not understand what deliberate means.

You choose to have unprotected sex deliberately when trying to have kids. So you’ve deliberately accepted the end result live birth or dead fetus when you made the decision.

I don't. Conceiving children entails variables entirely outside any human control.

This is false. Just like with felony DUI with a child the decision to face those variables is entirely in your control.

That's a wholly different act than deliberately seeking to destroy an innocent human being. Driving my children to school each day involves a risk of a fatal car crash, just as any act at all entails risks to third parties.



I don't say they're the same. I say they each share one commonality: a right to live stemming from their status as human beings.

Sure. It’s just you want to assign status as a human being arbitrarily. While all people started as fertilized eggs not all fertilized eggs become a person.

There's also a moral difference between the best course of action for end-of-life care for invalids and deliberately seeking to kill an otherwise healthy and innocent human being.

Sure but again the reason it’s morally ok is because the person is no longer a person it’s just a body. Likewise a fertilized egg is not even a body it’s potentially a body and potentially a person(s) but it is not a person yet.

REM sleep is the cutoff? Why? That seems awfully arbitrary.

Because REM sleep is a process that the minds of healthy born people perform, that is analogous to how the waking mind works, indicating the fetus now has a functioning human mind.

A fertilized egg has nothing that could possibly contain a human mind therefore there is no person who would die from an abortion yet.

You want to claim there's a soul in that fertilized egg even though that egg may be as many as five people or no one at all.

It’s also why the religious argument is ridiculous. You want to argue they are innocent children at the moment of conception. Yet we know nature (or god in your case) aborts 30-70% of them.

In either the scientific or religious case fertilized eggs are not people - yet.

 

[dank69]

“The conclusion that human life begins at sperm-egg fusion is uncontested, objective, based on the universally accepted scientific method of distinguishing different cell types from each other and on ample scientific evidence—thousands of independent, peer-reviewed publications.” Dr. Maureen Condic, associate professor in the Department of Neurobiology and Anatomy at the University of Utah Health (2014)

"Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being—a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings." Report, Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, 97th Congress, 1st Session 1981, 7.

Any embryology textbook attests to this. It is incumbent upon abortion proponents to explain to us on what basis this science is ill-founded.

There is a difference between human life and a human life. A zygote has the potential to be 1 or more human lives.

Let's look at it from another angle. After the IVF process, there are usually extra embryos left over. In your opinion, rank the morality of the following choices:

1) Throw them away
2) Use them for research that could lead to the technology to save millions of lives
3) Preserve them until the heat death of the solar system

 

[glenn1]

There is a difference between human life and a human life. A zygote has the potential to be 1 or more human lives.

Let's look at it from another angle. After the IVF process, there are usually extra embryos left over. In your opinion, rank the morality of the following choices:

1) Throw them away
2) Use them for research that could lead to the technology to save millions of lives
3) Preserve them until the heat death of the solar system

Luckily scientists are working on artificial wombs so hopefully “bodily integrity” is off the table before long. The unborn will be removed from the mother’s womb into the artificial one and she gets the full term baby a few months later.

 

[fskimospy]

Luckily scientists are working on artificial wombs so hopefully “bodily integrity” is off the table before long. The unborn will be removed from the mother’s womb into the artificial one and she gets the full term baby a few months later.

There is no way to remove a fetus without violating bodily integrity so that will never happen.

Again, it’s funny to look at your past posts where you claimed not to care about abortion as compared to this thread. You’re clearly just rage posting, I doubt you actually hold these views.

 

[glenn1]

There is no way to remove a fetus without violating bodily integrity so that will never happen.

Again, it’s funny to look at your past posts where you claimed not to care about abortion as compared to this thread. You’re clearly just rage posting, I doubt you actually hold these views.

If removing a fetus via abortion isn’t violating bodily integrity then neither would be removing that fetus and placing it into an artificial womb.

 

[fskimospy]

If removing a fetus via abortion isn’t violating bodily integrity then neither would be removing that fetus and placing it into an artificial womb.

You’re doing the same dumb two-step where a clump of cells is the same as a person.

Again, I find it funny that you stated before you didn’t much care about abortion, you thought it should be a state issue. You’re just arguing for the sake of arguing because you’re mad.

 

[brycejones]

If removing a fetus via abortion isn’t violating bodily integrity then neither would be removing that fetus and placing it into an artificial womb.

You appear to be derpy drunk.

 

[Atreus21]

You choose to have unprotected sex deliberately when trying to have kids. So you’ve deliberately accepted the end result live birth or dead fetus when you made the decision.

This is false. Just like with felony DUI with a child the decision to face those variables is entirely in your control.

There are whole courses in law school devoted to intent and what role it plays in the consequences to any action you may take. The abortion issue doesn't involve that. It involves deliberately seeking to kill an innocent human being. We could get in the weeds with 2nd order effects of actions in a separate thread.

Sure. It’s just you want to assign status as a human being arbitrarily. While all people started as fertilized eggs not all fertilized eggs become a person.

As I already posted, it's the opposite of arbitrary. Science precisely defines what is and isn't a biological human being. The "personhood" debate is just appropriating the tactics of slavers, nazis, and soviets. Suddenly, once we identify a group we want to eliminate, we invent complex philosophical concepts like personhood and obviously conclude that the targeted group doesn't qualify. That is the arbitrariness you seem to have missed.

Sure but again the reason it’s morally ok is because the person is no longer a person it’s just a body. Likewise a fertilized egg is not even a body it’s potentially a body and potentially a person(s) but it is not a person yet.

Again, personhood is wholly arbitrary. I might just as well say they're no longer "people", whatever I mean by that.

Because REM sleep is a process that the minds of healthy born people perform, that is analogous to how the waking mind works, indicating the fetus now has a functioning human mind.

A fertilized egg has nothing that could possibly contain a human mind therefore there is no person who would die from an abortion yet.

Are sick born people who may lack REM sleep worthy of death?

This is just more arbitrariness. Targeted human being lacks quality X, therefore we may kill them.

You want to claim there's a soul in that fertilized egg even though that egg may be as many as five people or no one at all.

It’s also why the religious argument is ridiculous. You want to argue they are innocent children at the moment of conception. Yet we know nature (or god in your case) aborts 30-70% of them.

I've brought absolutely nothing religious into this debate. It's strictly a scientific question.

In either the scientific or religious case fertilized eggs are not people - yet.

They are most definitely human beings, according to science. I'll give more sources if you like.

 

[Atreus21]

Also note your vaunted science says "human life", not "a new human being is created". Maybe don't pretend science supports your viewpoint.

I think perhaps it's incumbent on you to tell me why human life doesn't mean human being.

 

[fskimospy]

There are whole courses in law school devoted to intent and what role it plays in the consequences to any action you may take. The abortion issue doesn't involve that. It involves deliberately seeking to kill an innocent human being. We could get in the weeds with 2nd order effects of actions in a separate thread.



As I already posted, it's the opposite of arbitrary. Science precisely defines what is and isn't a biological human being. The "personhood" debate is just appropriating the tactics of slavers, nazis, and soviets. Suddenly, once we identify a group we want to eliminate, we invent complex philosophical concepts like personhood and obviously conclude that the targeted group doesn't qualify. That is the arbitrariness you seem to have missed.



Again, personhood is wholly arbitrary. I might just as well say they're no longer "people", whatever I mean by that.



Are sick born people who may lack REM sleep worthy of death?

This is just more arbitrariness. Targeted human being lacks quality X, therefore we may kill them.



I've brought absolutely nothing religious into this debate. It's strictly a scientific question.



They are most definitely human beings, according to science. I'll give more sources if you like.

It’s very interesting that you wrote all this while acknowledging that you would allow a billion of these human beings deserving of life die to save a single baby, despite the fact that according to you the only difference is that one is nine months older.

Like I have said many times it is obvious you don’t actually believe this so I don’t know why you keep arguing it.

 

[Atreus21]

It’s very interesting that you wrote all this while acknowledging that you would allow a billion of these human beings deserving of life die to save a single baby, despite the fact that according to you the only difference is that one is nine months older.

We've already addressed this. There are circumstances in which I would definitely prioritize the embryos over a born human. You didnt respond to my last post on this.

Like I have said many times it is obvious you don’t actually believe this so I don’t know why you keep arguing it.

The feeling, rest assured, is mutual.

 

[Paratus]

It’s very interesting that you wrote all this while acknowledging that you would allow a billion of these human beings deserving of life die to save a single baby, despite the fact that according to you the only difference is that one is nine months older.

Like I have said many times it is obvious you don’t actually believe this so I don’t know why you keep arguing it.

He also always avoids the dead fetuses he’s responsible for that arise from trying to procreate.

 

[darkswordsman17]

He also always avoids the dead fetuses he’s responsible for that arise from trying to procreate.

My guess is that I think he's fine aborting the half man half sheep (or maybe half man half sock?) that would be born out of such. Now, he can't help it if it does happen (because only the divine God could spurn such a beast into being) so its completely outside of human control! Or something, any which way, he's not responsible for where he jams his dick while he ejaculates. That and he's probably one of those people that claims that aliens have abducted him for milking. Or maybe God came down, possessed his body and fucked his wife through him? I can't keep up with modern conservative beliefs on this stuff as their conspiracies and giving god credit/blame for their actions is ever evolving.

 

[darkswordsman17]

That feeling when you realize the guy who has been vehemently arguing against abortion for pages has no idea how almost all abortions happen.

Haha, seeing your comment made me have to check it out, assuming it was some callous joke about using a coat hanger or something. Then I see that, nope, he just went full religious whacko that thinks he actually understands this topic while revealing that he absolutely does not at all.

I didn't think he'd be able to outdo his "guys are getting sex changes to pass PT" argument for ridiculousness that he genuinely seems to believe is completely plausible based on his understanding of the science/biology/medical aspects, but he found a way.

Also amusing is if you look at glenn's posting history he's repeatedly said he doesn't care much about abortion at all. His stance here is almost certainly just becoming more and more extreme because he's rage posting, not because he actually believes it.

That's just because liberals are so mean! You made him do it! Like how he was calling other people assholes then whined when I called him one.

 

[fskimospy]

We've already addressed this. There are circumstances in which I would definitely prioritize the embryos over a born human. You didnt respond to my last post on this.

The feeling, rest assured, is mutual.

And zero cases where you would prioritize them over a baby, despite the only difference being one is nine months older. Billions of ‘human beings’ and you’re letting them die over one baby who is just a little older.

By your own logic you’re either an inhuman monster or...like I said...you don’t actually believe this nonsense.

 

[pmv]

I will answer the question this way. Suppose like stop and frisk law enforcement started stopping 50 year old white males on the streets outside banks and brokerage houses, searched their papers, computers and storage. Walked them back up to their office and start a random search of their files looking for violations of law.

That program would last 24 hours before the phone calls are made to the right person.

I picked 50 year old white male because it fits the profile of people who commit financial fraud that cost this country far more money then brown people ever could.

That's how I feel about the constant calls for more 'stop and search' here, to deal with the increase in knife crime (perceived as 'black-on-black', though that's only really the case in London, elsewhere its white kids doing the stabbing - as I see it there's a kind of 'ecological niche' that just happens, for complex historical reasons, to be filled disproportiontely by black youth in London, but in other parts of the country it's other groups who fill that role).

You would catch some knife-carriers and prevent some crimes, but you'd also prevent a lot of crime if you allowed random searches of people's houses, or searching motorists cars, but the same people who call for more stop-and-search of youths in the street would have conniptions at that. They're all 'the ends justify the means, stopping crime is all that matters' as long as it's not _them_ who are being targeted.

Even if you ignore the general morality of it, you'd have to account for the bad effects on police-community relations - it would likely end up increasing crime in the long run, by destroying all respect for the police or willingness to co-operate with them.

I've been stopped-and-searched a few times without any good reason and it made me pretty annoyed, and I'm not even black, so I don't get it constantly. When given that power the police go on fishing-expeditions, and they do so based on dubious judgements about people's appearance.