It used to be ok...

[FerrelGeek]

My word 'ok' was a generic term. I was also addressing a broader topic if you'd actually read my post. Selling children did happen in ancient times. FFS, it happens today in some countries. And no, it's not ok.

I think someone got triggered because I dared to speak out against revisionist history.

I am sorry but that sounds like a pile of manure that you are trying to shove up our asses!!

I could find no written proof online where it was ever "OK" to sell a child!! Every example I found had to do with legal apotion or the courts were involved in allowing the raising of child by someone other than the birth parents!!

 

[FerrelGeek]

Like I said to Jedi, my use of 'OK' was a generality. I actually agree with the vast majority of what you wrote. My use of the word 'OK' would have been better changed to 'tolerated'. I'm glad that you acknowledge that some of the founders were against slavery. From some writings I've seen, there are people who gloss over that fact.

I also agree with you that what's happening today around the world is an outrage. Slavery still exists today. Human trafficking is rampant in some areas; it happens in the US. The daughter of an acquaintance of mine had a close call with this.

I disagree with your comments about Twain. I'm opposed to whitewashing (no pun intended) our history. Tell the truth: good, bad, ugly. If we cover up and lose the ugly, future generations will lose valuable lessons.

Sorry. Need to go. No time to write more now. Thanks for your reply.

No, that's the point. They were never okay, even by "the standards of that time". Slavery was never okay, spousal abuse was never okay, child labor was never okay. There exists a clear historical record of people that expressed moral outrage at the time. There exists a clear historical record that the founding fathers knew that owning slaves was an abomination. The fact that they were legal and society permitted them does not change this. As an analog, locking children in cages today, allowing them to starve and die today is a moral outrage and also legal and socially permitted. If some future society looks back on these atrocities and believes they were "okay by the standards of that time" they will be just as wrong.

Nikhil Pal Singh has discussed this extensively, and cited the historical record. The idea that atrocities like slavery were ever considered to be okay is deeply corrosive and cannot be tolerated.



That is a completely different issue. For one thing, that word is one of the most powerful symbolic reminders of what this country did to black people. I've seen scholars that I respect suggest that the historical value of Twain's works are not worth exposing the reader to that word.

 

[Atreus21]

Hahahahahahahaha. For someone who claims to harbor "above average" intelligence, why did you choose to not read or scrutinize the pseudo-manuscript you posted? If I was going to post something, I would make sure I read it and thought about the contents before posting something that borders on academic fraud.

First of all, you do realize that "paper" has not been peer reviewed, correct?

It's a doctoral dissertation that went through a PHD defense. That it hasn't yet been peer reviewed (it's dated June 2019) doesn't magically mean it's a pack of lies.

There's many reasons why it hasn't past muster and been published in an academic journal, even the abstract is fraudulent. How did Steven Jacobs come up with 95% that you purposefully placed in bold? Did you actually read and understand what he means by 95%? Let me break it down, because I read it.

He made a composite outcome. He combined the responses of several questions of his "survey" to obtain 95%. What were the questions he included in his composite outcome?

Q1: "The end product of mammalian fertilization is a fertilized egg (‘zygote’), a new mammalian organism in the first stage of its species’ life cycle with its species’ genome "
Q2: “The development of a mammal begins with fertilization, a process by which the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote.”

95% of biologists did not affirm that "a human's life begins at fertilization." A significant proportion of that 95% value agreed with the idea that a new mammalian organism is created at fertilization. Nowhere in those two questions does the words human life appear, nor the phrasing of "a human's life begins at fertilization." That's obvious reason #1 why this junk survey has never achieved publication, it is a downright false statement he makes in his abstract.

I think it's pretty clear that question #1 + question #2 = conclusion: the development of a mammal (including humans) begins at fertilization.

But suppose for a moment that you're right, that the 95% figure is wholly a lie.

How do you explain the answers to question 4: "In developmental biology, fertilization marks the beginning of a human's life since that process produces an organism with a human genome that has begun to develop in the first stage of the human life cycle.” to which pro-choice biologists agreed at a rate of 69%.

Or more importantly, question 5: “From a biological perspective, a
zygote that has a human genome is a human because it is a human
organism developing in the earliest stage of the human life cycle.” to which pro-choice biologists agreed at a rate of 64%.

Among biologists, the most fervent abortion defenders are more likely to agree with those two statements than not.

Furthermore, how did he generate his survey? His methodology is sparse, incomplete, and simply doesn't make any sense. He claims that he magically contacted "62,469" biologists through email. No, he didn't have a listserv or mass email list to send it out to. He seriously claims that he looked up "biologists" on academic websites and emailed them. Am I really to believe he sat at his computer and emailed each one? If I were to assume it takes 1 minute to look up each "biologist," it would take him over 43 days of working 24-hours non-stop to achieve that number. Are you really that gullible?

Go to the study and check out the citation on page 238, specifically citation 36.

To save you some time, it says emails were sent over a period of a year and a half.

I think your bias is a greater inhibition here than my gullibility.

He also claims to have solicited "post-docs" from faculty pages. Post-docs are not faculty, and most don't even have a separate page on the websites of different academic institutions. So how did he solicit contact information from this group? It makes zero logistical sense.

The most likely explanation is that there are some universities he targeted that (1) do consider some post-docs faculty and therefore (2) list them as faculty on their faculty web-page.

How does he define a "biologist?" Does a virologist qualify? How about a bacteriologist? Structural biologist? Which one's did he select? He can't claim he emailed a bunch of experts in the field if he doesn't even know what area of biology they are experts in. His use of the term "biologist" is just trying to put lipstick on a pig, it is a buzz term trying to make it sound like he contacted experts in the field. But again, there's a reason why he doesn't include such key points in his methodology, it is clearly junk science.

See citation 35 and 36. He contacted them based on membership in universities reputed to be the best in biology, and the sample was comprised 95% of PhDs. Furthermore he specifies their specialties in Anatomy, Biochemistry, Botany, Cellular Biology, Developmental Biology, etc in Table 5.1.

It seems to me more likely than not that the sample was comprised mostly of "experts in the field" as you describe them

Look at his response rate, 12%. That is an utterly dreadful response rate, as many social science surveys of good academic rigor achieve 30-60% response rates.

And citation 37.

Look at the rest of his methodology. He claims he asked biology questions to solicit the expertise of the subjects, but nowhere does he include the data to validate his survey. Why did he refuse to include that validation data? Look at the author list. There is only one person willing to slap their name on this write-up, just "Steven Andrew Jacobs." It is almost unheard of for a PhD candidate to try to publish something in academia without having his degree mentor(s) as co-authors. There's a reason nobody else wanted authorship of his low-quality efforts, right from the onset from his abstract, one can tell it is fraudulent data.

Well, we know that he went through hell to even get the research approved, including having his own advisor turn on him despite having a hand in creating the methodology.

That it has a single author is not unheard of. You can find all sorts of them at https://knowledge.uchicago.edu/?ln=en

Its pretty clear his write-up is garbage and everything is indicative of bad science. So why did you trust those results when you didn't even bother to read his inept and/or made-up attempt to describe biologists' views?

What's pretty clear is that your objections amount to essentially, "It's all lies" and nitpicking.

I think the fact that he sought answers to these questions at all makes him suspect in the eyes of abortion proponents. It's peculiar that all science is relegated to junk status when it doesn't get progressives to their intended destination.

If you can find anything approximating a general scientific affirmation that a human being is not created at conception, but rather at some later point in development, I'd be delighted to see it. It's an empirical question, with an obvious answer.

 

[abj13]

It's a doctoral dissertation that went through a PHD defense. That it hasn't yet been peer reviewed (it's dated June 2019) doesn't magically mean it's a pack of lies.

Your link is not a doctoral dissertation. The fact you make this statement only further demonstrates you don't even know what a dissertation is nor did you read his document. His dissertation is available online elsewhere, but what you linked IS NOT his dissertation. What you linked is what he uploaded to SSRN, a repository of early projects but is not peer reviewed.

Nonetheless, my posts clearly demonstrates why his "survey" is a bunch of garbage and why anyone who takes an objective stance in reviewing his "study" would find the methodology very troubling and lacking in academic integrity.

I think it's pretty clear that question #1 + question #2 = conclusion: the development of a mammal (including humans) begins at fertilization.

No it is not. The fact that a third of responders CHANGED their response to question three demonstrates that one cannot assume their responses for 1 and 2 would be the same for #3. It wasn't even worth mentioning this absurdity in my initial post because anyone who read it would have recognized the clear logical fallacy. To top it off, he produces data that demonstrates that YOU shouldn't assume that what responders put to questions #1 and #2 will mean they also agree with when "human life" begins.

It is hilarious watching you make the same exact logical absurdities as the author. No, 95% of responders did not "affirmed the biological view that a human's life begins at fertilization." Stop promoting this obvious false statement. Even his own data doesn't support the idiotic assumption that if someone affirms question 1 and 2, they will affirm questions 3 and 4.

Among biologists, the most fervent abortion defenders are more likely to agree with those two statements than not.

Even if his results are not fabricated, only two out of three biologists* agree when "human life" begins. That's a whole heck of a difference than 95%. But wait, I thought it was 95% you put in bold in your post? Why are you suddenly so willing to change your goal posts?

*Define for me biologists again in this study.

Go to the study and check out the citation on page 238, specifically citation 36.

To save you some time, it says emails were sent over a period of a year and a half.

I think your bias is a greater inhibition here than my gullibility.

Page 238 doesn't exist in the link you posted. Now you are trying to conflate his dissertation with his SSRN post. Good job on purposefully trying to distort the truth.

His attempt to claim that he sent the survey out over that time period doesn't fix the problem of his magical list of "biologists" he somehow conjured up. Explain to all of us, how he magically contacted "62,469 biologists." Where is this list? This would have certainly been scrutizined if he submitted his work for peer review. Furthermore, anyone who takes 1.5 years to obtain a survey would analyze the data to confirm homogeneity of the responses over time. Where was this done? Can you point to it Atreus21??? 25% of the survey takers didn't even take the same survey as the other 75%! That doesn't raise a huge red flag for you???

The most likely explanation is that there are some universities he targeted that (1) do consider some post-docs faculty and therefore (2) list them as faculty on their faculty web-page.

And? Nowhere did I say all universities don't include post-docs. Please demonstrate where I said that. But wait, let's come back to that point in a moment...

See citation 35 and 36. He contacted them based on membership in universities reputed to be the best in biology, and the sample was comprised 95% of PhDs. Furthermore he specifies their specialties in Anatomy, Biochemistry, Botany, Cellular Biology, Developmental Biology, etc in Table 5.1.

It seems to me more likely than not that the sample was comprised mostly of "experts in the field" as you describe them

If you are going to bother quoting what I said, please actually respond to the contents of that quote. Again, how does he define a "biologist?" Does a virologist qualify? How about a bacteriologist? Structural biologist? Which one's did he select? He can't claim he emailed a bunch of experts in the field if he doesn't even know what area of biology they are experts in. Do you know? What makes an "ecologist" an expert on human development? Who are those in the "other group" who constitute more than 10% of the survey?

But your post proves my point even further. You posted a link to the University of Michigan's Cell and Developmental Biology faculty list. One example,

Michael Hortsch
Professor
Research Focus: Medical education, histology, e-learning, educational technology, virtual microscopy

Explain to me again, what makes him an expert on when does "human life begin?" His distinguished career has focused on educating students in histology. Exactly how and why does that make him an expert? How does someone like Billy Tsai, who focuses on viral infections and their interaction with the endoplasmic reticulum, an expert on when does life begin?

That is exactly my point and exactly what you just reinforced with your post. You and Steven Andrew Jacobs don't understand what it means to be a "biologist." You specifically don't understand what a broad term that constitutes and how is purposefully deceptive to those who don't understand what it means. Being a biologist is a broad term. A virologist is a biologist. A bacteriologist is a biologist. Does their focus on non-eukaryotic organisms make them an expert on when "human life begins?"

It is akin to you creating a survey of engineers and asking them if jet fuel can melt steel beams. And instead of actually interviewing engineers who are experts in the area, you interview a bunch of nuclear and systems engineers, and claim they are experts on the temperature at which steel melts because they are "engineers" too.

Again, why didn't he include his validation data about the expertise of the subjects?

And citation 37.

Great, and how does that validate his data, when high quality research involves a significantly higher response rate? You still haven't addressed the point.

Furthermore, your links from your post demonstrate some the biggest problems of surveys, the non-response rate and social conformity. This is why the response rate is telling, and your link to "The Fix" proves this is true. If we actually believe Stephen Andrew Jacobs (which is dubious at best) he claims numerous people emailed him pointing out they recognized the flaws in his survey and how it was of questionable ethics. What that only means is that many people did not respond to his survey because they recognized it was a wolf in sheep's clothing. They chose not to respond, meaning his survey (again, if we were to assume was real) underestimates the number who disagree when life begins. Furthermore, it also means people recognized the survey for what it is, and if they AGREE with the underlying purpose, they would be MORE likely to respond, further overestimating the number.

This is a clear and fundamental difference between his survey and "citation 37." These are tremendous and fundamental flaws to the study, reinforced by the links you posted. These are basic biases of surveys taught to anyone interested in research studies that utilize mass surveys.

Explain to me why over a thousand of the survey takers answered Q1, but refused to answer Q3. Explain to me how this isn't biased data.

Well, we know that he went through hell to even get the research approved, including having his own advisor turn on him despite having a hand in creating the methodology.

That it has a single author is not unheard of. You can find all sorts of them at https://knowledge.uchicago.edu/?ln=en

Uh Atreus21, think about what you just wrote. You, yourself, have magically walked back his 95% claim to 64-69%. His methodology is tremendously flawed. Why again would somebody want to put their name on research that doesn't add up? As part of academic publishing, anyone who significantly contributes to the study design, interpretation, and publication should be listed as an author. Even your own link demonstrates exactly what I was getting at. The adviser thinks its garbage work of dubious integrity and walked away. For your own integrity, you should too from this dubious study.

What's pretty clear is that your objections amount to essentially, "It's all lies" and nitpicking.

I think the fact that he sought answers to these questions at all makes him suspect in the eyes of abortion proponents. It's peculiar that all science is relegated to junk status when it doesn't get progressives to their intended destination.

Ah, the world we live in in post-facts. Your post did nothing to rectify the horrible attempt at a survey you posted. It is fraught with methodological flaws. Again, why would anyone write that 95% agree with a statement, when the data doesn't show that, is academic fraud. Your handwaving over the survey subjects demonstrates that even you can't explain to anyone here how he came up with his study population. You cannot explain who he actually considers as a "biologist." Heck, your own handwaving of linking to the University of Michigan means that he would have sent the survey to someone who focuses on teaching histology to students, a virologist, or a groups of ecologists. They are not experts in human development. Yet, you and Steven Andrew Jacobs thinks so because you don't understand the term "biologist." Then you top it all off with the methodological biases in the survey itself, reflected in the utterly dreadful response rate. And all you can do, like the author, is handwave them away with a citation. Did the authors in citation 37 have multiple people emailing them about the ethical questionability of that survey? Did the authors of citation 37 have over a thousand survey responders answer q1 but not q3? Please, none of your responses address the questions as to why it is a horrible survey including the issues with over/under-estimation because of the biases inherent to the survey. Truly, Atreus21, you can explain to all of us why over a 1000 survey takers responded to q1 but not q3, right???

But all this doesn't matter. Some people don't care about truth, honesty, and integrity when it comes to science. If you did, you would have NEVER bolded his false statement of "95% affirmed the biological view that a human's life begins at fertilization."

If you can find anything approximating a general scientific affirmation that a human being is not created at conception, but rather at some later point in development, I'd be delighted to see it. It's an empirical question, with an obvious answer.

Why suddenly are you only beholden to scientists? Do scientists run the country and decide when legal rights should be provided to a conceptus? But wait, the majority of the "biologists" in the study are pro-choice. It would appear to be a difference in deciding when life begins vs when rights are provided to the conceptus. Next time, read your links again.

 

[Atreus21]

Your link is not a doctoral dissertation. The fact you make this statement only further demonstrates you don't even know what a dissertation is nor did you read his document. His dissertation is available online elsewhere, but what you linked IS NOT his dissertation. What you linked is what he uploaded to SSRN, a repository of early projects but is not peer reviewed.

Nonetheless, my posts clearly demonstrates why his "survey" is a bunch of garbage and why anyone who takes an objective stance in reviewing his "study" would find the methodology very troubling and lacking in academic integrity.



No it is not. The fact that a third of responders CHANGED their response to question three demonstrates that one cannot assume their responses for 1 and 2 would be the same for #3. It wasn't even worth mentioning this absurdity in my initial post because anyone who read it would have recognized the clear logical fallacy. To top it off, he produces data that demonstrates that YOU shouldn't assume that what responders put to questions #1 and #2 will mean they also agree with when "human life" begins.

It is hilarious watching you make the same exact logical absurdities as the author. No, 95% of responders did not "affirmed the biological view that a human's life begins at fertilization." Stop promoting this obvious false statement. Even his own data doesn't support the idiotic assumption that if someone affirms question 1 and 2, they will affirm questions 3 and 4.


Even if his results are not fabricated, only two out of three biologists* agree when "human life" begins. That's a whole heck of a difference than 95%. But wait, I thought it was 95% you put in bold in your post? Why are you suddenly so willing to change your goal posts?

*Define for me biologists again in this study.



Page 238 doesn't exist in the link you posted. Now you are trying to conflate his dissertation with his SSRN post. Good job on purposefully trying to distort the truth.

His attempt to claim that he sent the survey out over that time period doesn't fix the problem of his magical list of "biologists" he somehow conjured up. Explain to all of us, how he magically contacted "62,469 biologists." Where is this list? This would have certainly been scrutizined if he submitted his work for peer review. Furthermore, anyone who takes 1.5 years to obtain a survey would analyze the data to confirm homogeneity of the responses over time. Where was this done? Can you point to it Atreus21??? 25% of the survey takers didn't even take the same survey as the other 75%! That doesn't raise a huge red flag for you???



And? Nowhere did I say all universities don't include post-docs. Please demonstrate where I said that. But wait, let's come back to that point in a moment...



If you are going to bother quoting what I said, please actually respond to the contents of that quote. Again, how does he define a "biologist?" Does a virologist qualify? How about a bacteriologist? Structural biologist? Which one's did he select? He can't claim he emailed a bunch of experts in the field if he doesn't even know what area of biology they are experts in. Do you know? What makes an "ecologist" an expert on human development? Who are those in the "other group" who constitute more than 10% of the survey?

But your post proves my point even further. You posted a link to the University of Michigan's Cell and Developmental Biology faculty list. One example,

Michael Hortsch
Professor
Research Focus: Medical education, histology, e-learning, educational technology, virtual microscopy

Explain to me again, what makes him an expert on when does "human life begin?" His distinguished career has focused on educating students in histology. Exactly how and why does that make him an expert? How does someone like Billy Tsai, who focuses on viral infections and their interaction with the endoplasmic reticulum, an expert on when does life begin?

That is exactly my point and exactly what you just reinforced with your post. You and Steven Andrew Jacobs don't understand what it means to be a "biologist." You specifically don't understand what a broad term that constitutes and how is purposefully deceptive to those who don't understand what it means. Being a biologist is a broad term. A virologist is a biologist. A bacteriologist is a biologist. Does their focus on non-eukaryotic organisms make them an expert on when "human life begins?"

It is akin to you creating a survey of engineers and asking them if jet fuel can melt steel beams. And instead of actually interviewing engineers who are experts in the area, you interview a bunch of nuclear and systems engineers, and claim they are experts on the temperature at which steel melts because they are "engineers" too.

Again, why didn't he include his validation data about the expertise of the subjects?



Great, and how does that validate his data, when high quality research involves a significantly higher response rate? You still haven't addressed the point.

Furthermore, your links from your post demonstrate some the biggest problems of surveys, the non-response rate and social conformity. This is why the response rate is telling, and your link to "The Fix" proves this is true. If we actually believe Stephen Andrew Jacobs (which is dubious at best) he claims numerous people emailed him pointing out they recognized the flaws in his survey and how it was of questionable ethics. What that only means is that many people did not respond to his survey because they recognized it was a wolf in sheep's clothing. They chose not to respond, meaning his survey (again, if we were to assume was real) underestimates the number who disagree when life begins. Furthermore, it also means people recognized the survey for what it is, and if they AGREE with the underlying purpose, they would be MORE likely to respond, further overestimating the number.

This is a clear and fundamental difference between his survey and "citation 37." These are tremendous and fundamental flaws to the study, reinforced by the links you posted. These are basic biases of surveys taught to anyone interested in research studies that utilize mass surveys.

Explain to me why over a thousand of the survey takers answered Q1, but refused to answer Q3. Explain to me how this isn't biased data.



Uh Atreus21, think about what you just wrote. You, yourself, have magically walked back his 95% claim to 64-69%. His methodology is tremendously flawed. Why again would somebody want to put their name on research that doesn't add up? As part of academic publishing, anyone who significantly contributes to the study design, interpretation, and publication should be listed as an author. Even your own link demonstrates exactly what I was getting at. The adviser thinks its garbage work of dubious integrity and walked away. For your own integrity, you should too from this dubious study.



Ah, the world we live in in post-facts. Your post did nothing to rectify the horrible attempt at a survey you posted. It is fraught with methodological flaws. Again, why would anyone write that 95% agree with a statement, when the data doesn't show that, is academic fraud. Your handwaving over the survey subjects demonstrates that even you can't explain to anyone here how he came up with his study population. You cannot explain who he actually considers as a "biologist." Heck, your own handwaving of linking to the University of Michigan means that he would have sent the survey to someone who focuses on teaching histology to students, a virologist, or a groups of ecologists. They are not experts in human development. Yet, you and Steven Andrew Jacobs thinks so because you don't understand the term "biologist." Then you top it all off with the methodological biases in the survey itself, reflected in the utterly dreadful response rate. And all you can do, like the author, is handwave them away with a citation. Did the authors in citation 37 have multiple people emailing them about the ethical questionability of that survey? Did the authors of citation 37 have over a thousand survey responders answer q1 but not q3? Please, none of your responses address the questions as to why it is a horrible survey including the issues with over/under-estimation because of the biases inherent to the survey. Truly, Atreus21, you can explain to all of us why over a 1000 survey takers responded to q1 but not q3, right???

But all this doesn't matter. Some people don't care about truth, honesty, and integrity when it comes to science. If you did, you would have NEVER bolded his false statement of "95% affirmed the biological view that a human's life begins at fertilization."



Why suddenly are you only beholden to scientists? Do scientists run the country and decide when legal rights should be provided to a conceptus? But wait, the majority of the "biologists" in the study are pro-choice. It would appear to be a difference in deciding when life begins vs when rights are provided to the conceptus. Next time, read your links again.

I argued that science supports the assertion that a human being is created at conception, and provided evidence to support that. What evidence do you have to refute this, or to support a claim to the contrary?

 

[abj13]

I argued that science supports the assertion that a human being is created at conception, and provided evidence to support that. What evidence do you have to refute this, or to support a claim to the contrary?

It is amazing how you think you say such a statement with a straight face. But you, Atreus21, you posted and bolded the statement that "95% of all biologists affirmed the biological view that a human's life begins at fertilization." Now, with a bunch of jazz hands, now instead of saying "biologists" it is apparently all of science now, you exchange "human life" for "human beings," and magically drop the number of 95%. You cannot even keep your arguments straight, let alone maintain some semblance of intellectual integrity. You didn't bother to read his study in the first place. Admit it.

And to top it off, you think "evidence" for you ever changing statements comes from a
1) non-peer reviewed survey (a failure to meet a fundamental benchmark of scientific research)
2) an author who purposely includes a false statement in his abstract
3) a survey that doesn't define the inclusion exclusion criteria of his study population, defining who is and is not a biologist
4) a survey in which non-experts in the field are considered experts (ala the let's ask a bunch of nuclear engineers the temperature at which steel melts logical fallacy)
5) a methodology that suggests he magically conjures up "62,469 biologists" with no quality control methods or metrics that can be reviewed
6) a survey in which 25% of the takers didn't even take the same survey as the other 75%
7) a survey with such a low response rate that it is laughable and prone to huge biases in non-responders and social conformity
8) a survey in which over a 1000 responders responded to question 1, but then refused to respond to question 3, the primary question of interest to the study
9) a study in which a conclusion is made despite his data suggesting otherwise (the idiotic statement about 95% of biologists agreeing with a statement they never agreed to)
10) His academic adviser who helped him design the study refuses to put his/her name on it due to questions of ethics and research integrity

You're right, you have no response to any of that. That's why instead of actually defending the multitude of reasons why it is junk, you resort to an inane post of argumentum ad nauseam like you just made. Instead of explaining to all of us why over a 1000 responders refused to respond to one of the survey questions, you go completely silent. The scientific method works on the ideas of study design, implementation, hypothesis generation and testing, data analysis and drawing appropriate conclusions from the data. Instead, you only like the conclusions, irregardless of how perverse and dubious the quality of the above survey. That isn't science Atreus21. It isn't even logic.

But this is your MO in everyone of these threads in which abortion is discussed. For single issue voter like yourself, you sure don't know anything about what you care voting about. All you can do is post garbage studies like you did, without reading them in the first place, refusing to defend the reasons why it is fundamentally junk, and hoping everyone will accept your logical fallacies.

 

[TheVrolok]

What a wonderful example of how the layman are duped by pseudoscience. My hat is off to abj13 for his critical analysis of the "paper" which was obviously junk science the minute I started reading the methods.

 

[Atreus21]

It is amazing how you think you say such a statement with a straight face. But you, Atreus21, you posted and bolded the statement that "95% of all biologists affirmed the biological view that a human's life begins at fertilization." Now, with a bunch of jazz hands, now instead of saying "biologists" it is apparently all of science now, you exchange "human life" for "human beings," and magically drop the number of 95%. You cannot even keep your arguments straight, let alone maintain some semblance of intellectual integrity. You didn't bother to read his study in the first place. Admit it.

And to top it off, you think "evidence" for you ever changing statements comes from a
1) non-peer reviewed survey (a failure to meet a fundamental benchmark of scientific research)
2) an author who purposely includes a false statement in his abstract
3) a survey that doesn't define the inclusion exclusion criteria of his study population, defining who is and is not a biologist
4) a survey in which non-experts in the field are considered experts (ala the let's ask a bunch of nuclear engineers the temperature at which steel melts logical fallacy)
5) a methodology that suggests he magically conjures up "62,469 biologists" with no quality control methods or metrics that can be reviewed
6) a survey in which 25% of the takers didn't even take the same survey as the other 75%
7) a survey with such a low response rate that it is laughable and prone to huge biases in non-responders and social conformity
8) a survey in which over a 1000 responders responded to question 1, but then refused to respond to question 3, the primary question of interest to the study
9) a study in which a conclusion is made despite his data suggesting otherwise (the idiotic statement about 95% of biologists agreeing with a statement they never agreed to)
10) His academic adviser who helped him design the study refuses to put his/her name on it due to questions of ethics and research integrity

You're right, you have no response to any of that. That's why instead of actually defending the multitude of reasons why it is junk, you resort to an inane post of argumentum ad nauseam like you just made. Instead of explaining to all of us why over a 1000 responders refused to respond to one of the survey questions, you go completely silent. The scientific method works on the ideas of study design, implementation, hypothesis generation and testing, data analysis and drawing appropriate conclusions from the data. Instead, you only like the conclusions, irregardless of how perverse and dubious the quality of the above survey. That isn't science Atreus21. It isn't even logic.

But this is your MO in everyone of these threads in which abortion is discussed. For single issue voter like yourself, you sure don't know anything about what you care voting about. All you can do is post garbage studies like you did, without reading them in the first place, refusing to defend the reasons why it is fundamentally junk, and hoping everyone will accept your logical fallacies.

And yet UChicago gave the author a PhD. I don't have to defend every facet of the dissertation against every possible criticism. Evidence doesn't have to rise to flawlessness to qualify as evidence. The challenges you raise could be deployed to derail the citation of any study, peer reviewed or not.

It's not argumentum ad nauseum. It's attempting to return to the topic against your determination to divert. Again, what evidence do you have to support a scientific affirmation to the contrary, that a biological human being begins to exist at some point beyond conception?

Further, do you truly believe you'd agree with my argument if the dissertation met your standards?

 

[abj13]

And yet UChicago gave the author a PhD. I don't have to defend every facet of the dissertation against every possible criticism. Evidence doesn't have to rise to flawlessness to qualify as evidence. The challenges you raise could be deployed to derail the citation of any study, peer reviewed or not.

It's not argumentum ad nauseum. It's attempting to return to the topic against your determination to divert. Again, what evidence do you have to support a scientific affirmation to the contrary, that a biological human being begins to exist at some point beyond conception?

Further, do you truly believe you'd agree with my argument if the dissertation met your standards?

There you have it. more argumentum ad nauseum. It is pretty clear from your replies that you are replying for the sake of trying to save face. You posted something you never read in the first place and you got caught posting purposely false information. If you really are interested in intellectual honesty, you would delete your post containing the fake claim. This isn't a study with one, two or even five problems. It is a non-peer reviewed study that is rotten to it's core. Nobody said a study shouldn't be flawless. Please quote any post in this thread demonstrating such a requirement for scientific studies.

If you are so certain that the "challenges" I showed could be "common to derail" any study, please show me twenty studies in which the authors include a false claim in the abstract. Show me twenty published surveys in which 25% of the subjects didn't receive the same survey as the other 75%. Show me twenty surveys that the author cannot even define his survey population or how the study population was validated. Show me twenty surveys in which over a 1000 responders answered one question but refused to answer the most important question of the survey.

Surely in your massive experience in reading scientific studies, you have run across these studies, correct? Shoot, did you read his dissertation? Out of the 300 pages of his dissertation, 6.5% of his pages are dedicated to the crap survey. In fact, in his summary abstract of his dissertation, he doesn't even mention anything about his survey. That shows you how little of importance his "study" was in obtaining a PhD. And based on your posts, I can only deduce you know of very little of the process of obtaining a PhD and how of the process is not a substitution for peer-review (1, 2. 3, 4, 5, 6).

In the end, for every major problem of the study, you have no response. You have been given multiple opportunities to explain why his major flaws are not major flaws, yet you purposely dodge the issue. Why did a 1,000 responders refuse to answer his primary question? Why did 25% of the responders receive a survey different from everyone else? But once again, your posts demonstrate you don't understand or believe in science. All you care about is the conclusion, even when the conclusion is wrong.

So again, where did 95% of "biologists" affirmed the biological view that a human's life begins at fertilization? Why aren't you posting that? Why are you changing the words to his statement yet again? Why is it now scientific affirmation instead of biologists? Human being instead of human life? You can continue to put more and more layers of lipstick on your pig, it still is a pig.

 

[Atreus21]

There you have it. more argumentum ad nauseum. It is pretty clear from your replies that you are replying for the sake of trying to save face. You posted something you never read in the first place and you got caught posting purposely false information. If you really are interested in intellectual honesty, you would delete your post containing the fake claim. This isn't a study with one, two or even five problems. It is a non-peer reviewed study that is rotten to it's core. Nobody said a study shouldn't be flawless. Please quote any post in this thread demonstrating such a requirement for scientific studies.

If you are so certain that the "challenges" I showed could be "common to derail" any study, please show me twenty studies in which the authors include a false claim in the abstract. Show me twenty published surveys in which 25% of the subjects didn't receive the same survey as the other 75%. Show me twenty surveys that the author cannot even define his survey population or how the study population was validated. Show me twenty surveys in which over a 1000 responders answered one question but refused to answer the most important question of the survey.

Surely in your massive experience in reading scientific studies, you have run across these studies, correct? Shoot, did you read his dissertation? Out of the 300 pages of his dissertation, 6.5% of his pages are dedicated to the crap survey. In fact, in his summary abstract of his dissertation, he doesn't even mention anything about his survey. That shows you how little of importance his "study" was in obtaining a PhD. And based on your posts, I can only deduce you know of very little of the process of obtaining a PhD and how of the process is not a substitution for peer-review (1, 2. 3, 4, 5, 6).

In the end, for every major problem of the study, you have no response. You have been given multiple opportunities to explain why his major flaws are not major flaws, yet you purposely dodge the issue. Why did a 1,000 responders refuse to answer his primary question? Why did 25% of the responders receive a survey different from everyone else? But once again, your posts demonstrate you don't understand or believe in science. All you care about is the conclusion, even when the conclusion is wrong.

So again, where did 95% of "biologists" affirmed the biological view that a human's life begins at fertilization? Why aren't you posting that? Why are you changing the words to his statement yet again? Why is it now scientific affirmation instead of biologists? Human being instead of human life? You can continue to put more and more layers of lipstick on your pig, it still is a pig.

Alright, in the interest of honesty: I posted a early draft of the dissertation that included the 95% number that was not supportable. All of my posts since then have been relative to the actual dissertation as published by UChicago, from which the 95% claim is absent.

I was foolish to bold the 95% claim, admitted.

Now. I am more interested in finding support for my core argument: that science lends more credence to the claim that a human being exists from conception, than to any other stage of development. Had I been paying closer attention, in lieu of the 95% figure I would've posted that, of the biologists who responded, 64% of the most pro-choice among them agree with the statement made in question 5, essentially that a human being exists from conception.

I never got a PhD, or even a master's degree. I don't know the ins and outs of dissertation defense, but I suspect that it involves ensuring that candidates adhere to some standard of methodological soundness, especially from a program with a decent reputation like University of Chicago. It seems to me your claim, essentially that the entire work is worthy of the trash heap, is unsupportable given that it had to meet at least UChicago's standards to confer a PhD on its author.

Is it likely that a dissertation committee was so easily fooled, especially given the intense scrutiny the author was under for engaging in the subject?

Finally, even if the study is a complete pack of lies, there is other evidence to support my claim. If there is scientific evidence to support the notion that mammals aren't created fundamentally from the moment sperm meets egg, but at some later point, I would like to see it.

 

[abj13]

Alright, in the interest of honesty: I posted a early draft of the dissertation that included the 95% number that was not supportable. All of my posts since then have been relative to the actual dissertation as published by UChicago, from which the 95% claim is absent.

I was foolish to bold the 95% claim, admitted.

Now. I am more interested in finding support for my core argument: that science lends more credence to the claim that a human being exists from conception, than to any other stage of development. Had I been paying closer attention, in lieu of the 95% figure I would've posted that, of the biologists who responded, 64% of the most pro-choice among them agree with the statement made in question 5, essentially that a human being exists from conception.

I never got a PhD, or even a master's degree. I don't know the ins and outs of dissertation defense, but I suspect that it involves ensuring that candidates adhere to some standard of methodological soundness, especially from a program with a decent reputation like University of Chicago. It seems to me your claim, essentially that the entire work is worthy of the trash heap, is unsupportable given that it had to meet at least UChicago's standards to confer a PhD on its author.

Is it likely that a dissertation committee was so easily fooled, especially given the intense scrutiny the author was under for engaging in the subject?

Finally, even if the study is a complete pack of lies, there is other evidence to support my claim. If there is scientific evidence to support the notion that mammals aren't created fundamentally from the moment sperm meets egg, but at some later point, I would like to see it.

That is very mature for you to post that.

Dissertations are not at the level of scrutiny that you think they might be. Think about it, Steven Andrew Jacobs wrote a 300 page document and his survey composed 6.5% of those pages. When you read the abstract and his final conclusions, the survey plays little part in his key points of his dissertation. In fact, he even writes that as such: "because part of this project shows that biologists on balance believe that a biological human’s life begins at fertilization, pro-life forces might see this project as ‘proof’ that elective abortion should be illegal throughout pregnancy. Yet this thesis concludes that a likely compromise on abortion would entail legal access to elective first-trimester abortions, so many pro-life Americans would be strongly opposed to such a resolution." The survey was hardly a focal point of his dissertation, in fact, it contrasts with his primary conclusion so it likely received very little scrutiny.

Furthermore, another way this can be analyzed is looking at his thesis committee. It is comprised of a cultural psychologist, someone interested in the evolution of human and primate behaviors, a professor who focuses on the relationship between race, sex, and politics in the post-Emancipation South, and a a law professor. The makeup of the thesis committee reflects the contents of the thesis. If his survey was a major point, they definitely would have included someone with a background in epidemiology or related field. They didn't. It wasn't a focus. It is clear, if you read Steven Andrew Jacobs' Twitter, he is a crazy anti-abortion supporter. However, his dissertation hardly reflects his Twitter posts, and is written in a reasonable manner. So it is clear where the committee focused their efforts in making sure his dissertation has academic rigor, it was the other 280 pages. You can easily find many stories on the internet of how the PhD dissertation is often a mere formality. This is why peer review of the survey is actually very important. It is the reason why many dissertations are described as "staple" dissertations. The PhD candidate simply staples their peer-reviewed publication into the dissertation because it has already received a major level of scrutiny. For Steven Andrew Jacobs, his survey wasn't a focal point, and it appears to have been a missed opportunity to improve the rigor of his dissertation.

Finally, you continue to make the same leap in logic. The question regarding abortion is not about what is or is not human life. That is not the primary question. The primary question is what/when do we confer rights to something that entails right to life, etc, AND can trump aspects like the rights of the mother. The other reason why I posted Steven Andrew Jacobs' quote from above is that even he recognizes that is the central question that needs to be addressed, and trying to address what is/is not human life is not the actual question (that's the rest of his thesis). Furthermore, his survey gets at the issue. There is a disconnect between what the responders in the survey thought when "life begins" He may not write about it, but just because you have a merger of a sperm and egg, it doesn't mean you have a single individual. It could be one, two, three, or even zero. The idea of rights being conferred at conception is full of logical leaps that are made. If we take a moment to believe his results, this is why many of those who described themselves as "very pro-choice" endorsed Q4 and Q5 in his dissertation. This is a clear disconnect between the question you are asking, and the actual question of what/when do we confer rights to something that entails right to life, etc, AND can trump aspects like the rights of the mother.

This point is one of the central points also made in Roe v Wade:

"Texas urges that, apart from the Fourteenth Amendment, life begins at conception and is present throughout pregnancy, and that, therefore, the State has a compelling interest in protecting that life from and after conception. We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer."

...

"We repeat, however, that the State does have an important and legitimate interest in preserving and protecting the health of the pregnant woman, whether she be a resident of the State or a nonresident who seeks medical consultation and treatment there, and that it has still another important and legitimate interest in protecting the potentiality of human life. These interests are separate and distinct. Each grows in substantiality as the woman approaches term and, at a point during pregnancy, each becomes "compelling."

This is why a majority of state abortion laws set a cutoff of elective abortions at viability.

 

[Atreus21]

That is very mature for you to post that.

Dissertations are not at the level of scrutiny that you think they might be. Think about it, Steven Andrew Jacobs wrote a 300 page document and his survey composed 6.5% of those pages. When you read the abstract and his final conclusions, the survey plays little part in his key points of his dissertation. In fact, he even writes that as such: "because part of this project shows that biologists on balance believe that a biological human’s life begins at fertilization, pro-life forces might see this project as ‘proof’ that elective abortion should be illegal throughout pregnancy. Yet this thesis concludes that a likely compromise on abortion would entail legal access to elective first-trimester abortions, so many pro-life Americans would be strongly opposed to such a resolution." The survey was hardly a focal point of his dissertation, in fact, it contrasts with his primary conclusion so it likely received very little scrutiny.

Furthermore, another way this can be analyzed is looking at his thesis committee. It is comprised of a cultural psychologist, someone interested in the evolution of human and primate behaviors, a professor who focuses on the relationship between race, sex, and politics in the post-Emancipation South, and a a law professor. The makeup of the thesis committee reflects the contents of the thesis. If his survey was a major point, they definitely would have included someone with a background in epidemiology or related field. They didn't. It wasn't a focus. It is clear, if you read Steven Andrew Jacobs' Twitter, he is a crazy anti-abortion supporter. However, his dissertation hardly reflects his Twitter posts, and is written in a reasonable manner. So it is clear where the committee focused their efforts in making sure his dissertation has academic rigor, it was the other 280 pages. You can easily find many stories on the internet of how the PhD dissertation is often a mere formality. This is why peer review of the survey is actually very important. It is the reason why many dissertations are described as "staple" dissertations. The PhD candidate simply staples their peer-reviewed publication into the dissertation because it has already received a major level of scrutiny. For Steven Andrew Jacobs, his survey wasn't a focal point, and it appears to have been a missed opportunity to improve the rigor of his dissertation.

So is there no qualitative difference between a doctoral dissertation and a term paper, then, if the dissertation defense is often just a formality?

Finally, you continue to make the same leap in logic. The question regarding abortion is not about what is or is not human life. That is not the primary question. The primary question is what/when do we confer rights to something that entails right to life, etc, AND can trump aspects like the rights of the mother. The other reason why I posted Steven Andrew Jacobs' quote from above is that even he recognizes that is the central question that needs to be addressed, and trying to address what is/is not human life is not the actual question (that's the rest of his thesis). Furthermore, his survey gets at the issue. There is a disconnect between what the responders in the survey thought when "life begins" He may not write about it, but just because you have a merger of a sperm and egg, it doesn't mean you have a single individual. It could be one, two, three, or even zero. The idea of rights being conferred at conception is full of logical leaps that are made. If we take a moment to believe his results, this is why many of those who described themselves as "very pro-choice" endorsed Q4 and Q5 in his dissertation. This is a clear disconnect between the question you are asking, and the actual question of what/when do we confer rights to something that entails right to life, etc, AND can trump aspects like the rights of the mother.

This point is one of the central points also made in Roe v Wade:

"Texas urges that, apart from the Fourteenth Amendment, life begins at conception and is present throughout pregnancy, and that, therefore, the State has a compelling interest in protecting that life from and after conception. We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer."

...

"We repeat, however, that the State does have an important and legitimate interest in preserving and protecting the health of the pregnant woman, whether she be a resident of the State or a nonresident who seeks medical consultation and treatment there, and that it has still another important and legitimate interest in protecting the potentiality of human life. These interests are separate and distinct. Each grows in substantiality as the woman approaches term and, at a point during pregnancy, each becomes "compelling."

This is why a majority of state abortion laws set a cutoff of elective abortions at viability.

Can't agree. Whether or not the fetus is a human being is the entire debate.

If the target of abortion is not a human being, then the debate is immediately resolved. Of course a woman should have the right to remove unwanted growths of cells from her body, like cancer or a mole, no less than she has the right to kill an infection.

If it is a human being, then the question moves to: "What justifies the deliberate killing of an innocent human being?" The only civilized answer to that is "Nothing, or very nearly nothing." I can't think of any exceptions, except to save the mother's life. Relieving a mother, even a 14 year old mother made pregnant by rape, of at worst a lifetime of pain and suffering isn't sufficient justification for putting an innocent to death - in the case of later abortion, literally tearing the child to pieces and putting them back together on a table like a puzzle.

When you compare the extremes of the pro-life side (requiring teenage rape victims to bear the children of their rapists), versus that of the pro-choice side (tearing a healthy infant to pieces), the more humane of the two becomes clear, horrible as it is.

Therefore, what science says about what constitutes a human being is more important than any other aspect of the debate.

 

[ShookKnight]

It's certainly a brown thing.

Because any hardships that drove that white woman to sell her own children are deemed as excuses for her behavior.

White Privilege: We Used It To Steal Your Land, Sell Our Own Children And Commit Treason.

 

[abj13]

So is there no qualitative difference between a doctoral dissertation and a term paper, then, if the dissertation defense is often just a formality?

Quite often that is correct. That is why the vast majority of citations in scientific research is of peer reviewed publications. Citing a dissertation would require more formal explanation as to why somebody would do that.

If it is a human being, then the question moves to: "What justifies the deliberate killing of an innocent human being?" The only civilized answer to that is "Nothing, or very nearly nothing." I can't think of any exceptions, except to save the mother's life. Relieving a mother, even a 14 year old mother made pregnant by rape, of at worst a lifetime of pain and suffering isn't sufficient justification for putting an innocent to death - in the case of later abortion, literally tearing the child to pieces and putting them back together on a table like a puzzle.

Therefore, what science says about what constitutes a human being is more important than any other aspect of the debate.

You are making the same exact logical leap again. You are conflating what it means to be a human life to what is a human being with rights and protections. And it isn't just me pointing this out. This is exactly what Steven Andrew Jacobs discusses in his dissertation, starting on page 148. Heck, even Steven Andrew Jacobs explicitly writes that your leap in logic is a logical fallacy. As I've already stated, his survey reflects this fundamental differences in statements, as many of those who described themselves as "very pro-choice" endorsed Q4 and Q5 in his dissertation. They are two separate ideas and you have to come to terms that belief in A does not also mean belief in B. You assume that people who define something as a life ALSO define that same things as having rights. One cannot make that assumption. It is two different arguments. The Supreme Court came to the same logical conclusion. They rejected your logical assumption. Its a pretty odd collection of people, Steven Andrew Jacobs, his group of "biologists," the Supreme Court, and me, but we all say the same thing to you. Your can't make the logical leap that you are creating. You really need to think about it again.

What is even more telling is your statement "I can't think of any exceptions, except to save the mother's life." You are freely admitting that the rights of the conceptus is not absolute. It can be outweighed. It is not equivalent to the mother. That tells me you see what you define as a human individual having rights and protections is different relative to others that you define as human individuals. This nuances approach is actually what most pro-choice people agree with and what many others who make exceptions for abortion. It is the absolutists, ala Ohio requiring reimplantation of ectopic pregnancies, that are at a minimum, logically consistent (the conceptus has rights from the very beginning and cannot be trumped no matter rape or health risk to the mother), but that logic is rejected by the many. Those who want to give rights at conception but make exceptions to it over and over, have created a logic tower built on logical fallicies and incoherence.

When you compare the extremes of the pro-life side (requiring teenage rape victims to bear the children of their rapists), versus that of the pro-choice side (tearing a healthy infant to pieces), the more humane of the two becomes clear, horrible as it is.

An appeal to emotion using misguided terms isn't logical. Trying to equate say an 8 or 16 week conceptus to a "healthy infant" (your words) is clearly you speaking from a predetermined conclusion. My posts aren't about infanticide.

 

[Atreus21]

Quite often that is correct. That is why the vast majority of citations in scientific research is of peer reviewed publications. Citing a dissertation would require more formal explanation as to why somebody would do that.

You are making the same exact logical leap again. You are conflating what it means to be a human life to what is a human being with rights and protections.

Correct, because I don't distinguish between the two. To qualify for the most fundamental human rights, namely the right to live, the only criteria is that you be a human being. Once we start separating the two we are in league with nazis and slavers - some humans have rights, others don't.

And it isn't just me pointing this out. This is exactly what Steven Andrew Jacobs discusses in his dissertation, starting on page 148. Heck, even Steven Andrew Jacobs explicitly writes that your leap in logic is a logical fallacy. As I've already stated, his survey reflects this fundamental differences in statements, as many of those who described themselves as "very pro-choice" endorsed Q4 and Q5 in his dissertation. They are two separate ideas and you have to come to terms that belief in A does not also mean belief in B. You assume that people who define something as a life ALSO define that same things as having rights.

Hang on, not so. Stemming for what I said above, it is only necessary for me to ascertain that the target of abortion is a biological human being, which is what those biologists did. From that, it is monstrous to argue that, despite being innocent human beings, that they have no right to live. Like I said, you can't separate the two without making the same arguments that Nazis did about Jews and other minorities.

To be a human being means to have at least the most basic human rights. Otherwise we're on a short route to the holocaust, as indeed the body count from abortion should attest.

One cannot make that assumption. It is two different arguments. The Supreme Court came to the same logical conclusion. They rejected your logical assumption. Its a pretty odd collection of people, Steven Andrew Jacobs, his group of "biologists," the Supreme Court, and me, but we all say the same thing to you. Your can't make the logical leap that you are creating. You really need to think about it again.

I saw him mention that in the initial draft. He wants to "move past the factual dispute on when life begins and focus on the operative question of when a fetus deserves legal consideration."

Fundamentally, though, my argument is the same as it is above. If you are a human being, you deserve "legal consideration" as he described it. Otherwise...well same as above.

What is even more telling is your statement "I can't think of any exceptions, except to save the mother's life." You are freely admitting that the rights of the conceptus is not absolute. It can be outweighed. It is not equivalent to the mother. That tells me you see what you define as a human individual having rights and protections is different relative to others that you define as human individuals. This nuances approach is actually what most pro-choice people agree with and what many others who make exceptions for abortion. It is the absolutists, ala Ohio requiring reimplantation of ectopic pregnancies, that are at a minimum, logically consistent (the conceptus has rights from the very beginning and cannot be trumped no matter rape or health risk to the mother), but that logic is rejected by the many. Those who want to give rights at conception but make exceptions to it over and over, have created a logic tower built on logical fallicies and incoherence.

No rights are absolute, and can be outweighed depending on the circumstances. If a pregnancy threatens the mother's life, we are bound at the outset and rights are irrelevant: someone must die. If two people are threatened with death and we can only save one, then it's a judgment call.

But for rights to compete with each other, they need to be similar. A mother's right to live vs her child's right to live requires nuance and careful consideration. A mother's right to "health"? I don't see how maintenance of health justifies killing an innocent.

An appeal to emotion using misguided terms isn't logical. Trying to equate say an 8 or 16 week conceptus to a "healthy infant" (your words) is clearly you speaking from a predetermined conclusion. My posts aren't about infanticide.

It's not an appeal to emotion. It's an apples to apples comparison of the extremes of both positions. Progressives often challenge pro-lifers to defend their position when it comes to rape victims. Progressives should be equally required to defend the butchery of late-term abortion, where a healthy child is literally torn apart and put back together again on a table.

Once we have described the worst extremes of each position, all that remains is to decide which is worse. To me, I think it's obvious: a rape victim at the very least is not deliberately put to death.

Incidentally, would you support a ban on abortions past, say, 24 weeks?

 

[abj13]

To qualify for the most fundamental human rights, namely the right to live, the only criteria is that you be a human being.

No rights are absolute, and can be outweighed depending on the circumstances.

And this is one of your fundamental logical fallacies, summarized across two sentences. On the one hand, the only requirement for a right to life is being a human being (if and only if A, then B). On the other hand, no right is absolute, suddenly there are circumstances in which some get the right to life and others do not (If A meets C but not D, then B). Nowhere in your first sentence is there any requirement that a conceptus cannot be a threat to the life of another. These are fundamentally opposed statements and both cannot be true. This is what I have previously pointed out about Ohio. At least they are logically consistent, if and only if A, then B, no exceptions. But because you have already made your preconceived notion of what is and not ok for abortion, you have to pigeon hole in ectopic pregnancies and other situations. Ultimately, it means your logical statements are opposed and you have argued yourself into a fallacy. Think about it. Instead of wasting your time with sad attempts for strawmen over Nazi's, think about your logic.

But, I don't need to invoke Godwin's law like you do. Your bad logic stands on its own. As I have already stated, people don't accept how you assume a human life is therefore a human being, in addition to defining at what point after conception is the conceptus a human being with rights associated with it. This has been the discussion the entire time, and you want to dance around it by inserting claims about Nazis and slavers, instead of addressing the point at hand. We are talking about pregnancy. We are talking about conception. We are talking about human development. The real issue has been agreed upon by Steven Andrew Jacobs, the "biologists," the Supreme Court, and me. But instead, you go on a tirade on a bunch of strawmen. At least Steven Andrew Jacobs took addressed the logic instead of writing about Nazis and slavers.

You think at conception you have a human life, therefore it is a human being, thus it has a right to life (if and only if A, then B, as human life and human beings are interchangeable under your logic). Please explain why we abort partial molar pregnancies. By your logic, we have a human life (moment sperm meets egg) that is your definition from above, therefore your logic says a partial molar pregnancy is a human being with rights. Furthermore, at conception, we don't know if we have one, two, three, or zero individuals, so how many individuals with rights are present at conception? Application of your logic puts you in so many fallacies. It is clear to everyone your assumptions of when human life is a human being is fundamentally flawed.

It's not an appeal to emotion. It's an apples to apples comparison of the extremes of both positions. Progressives often challenge pro-lifers to defend their position when it comes to rape victims. Progressives should be equally required to defend the butchery of late-term abortion, where a healthy child is literally torn apart and put back together again on a table.

Once we have described the worst extremes of each position, all that remains is to decide which is worse. To me, I think it's obvious: a rape victim at the very least is not deliberately put to death.

It is an appeal to emotion and now a strawman. I haven't asked you anything of rape victims. I suggest you read my posts instead of posting strawmen.

Incidentally, would you support a ban on abortions past, say, 24 weeks?

As I have posted in the past on here, there has to be a medical reason for an abortion at say 39 weeks. Examples would include anencephaly or something like Potter Sequence. I think many state laws are reasonable as written.

 

[Atreus21]

And this is one of your fundamental logical fallacies, summarized across two sentences. On the one hand, the only requirement for a right to life is being a human being (if and only if A, then B). On the other hand, no right is absolute, suddenly there are circumstances in which some get the right to life and others do not (If A meets C but not D, then B). Nowhere in your first sentence is there any requirement that a conceptus cannot be a threat to the life of another. These are fundamentally opposed statements and both cannot be true.

This is what I have previously pointed out about Ohio. At least they are logically consistent, if and only if A, then B, no exceptions. But because you have already made your preconceived notion of what is and not ok for abortion, you have to pigeon hole in ectopic pregnancies and other situations. Ultimately, it means your logical statements are opposed and you have argued yourself into a fallacy. Think about it. Instead of wasting your time with sad attempts for strawmen over Nazi's, think about your logic.

But, I don't need to invoke Godwin's law like you do. Your bad logic stands on its own. As I have already stated, people don't accept how you assume a human life is therefore a human being, in addition to defining at what point after conception is the conceptus a human being with rights associated with it. This has been the discussion the entire time, and you want to dance around it by inserting claims about Nazis and slavers, instead of addressing the point at hand. We are talking about pregnancy. We are talking about conception. We are talking about human development. The real issue has been agreed upon by Steven Andrew Jacobs, the "biologists," the Supreme Court, and me. But instead, you go on a tirade on a bunch of strawmen. At least Steven Andrew Jacobs took addressed the logic instead of writing about Nazis and slavers.

You think at conception you have a human life, therefore it is a human being, thus it has a right to life (if and only if A, then B, as human life and human beings are interchangeable under your logic). Please explain why we abort partial molar pregnancies. By your logic, we have a human life (moment sperm meets egg) that is your definition from above, therefore your logic says a partial molar pregnancy is a human being with rights. Furthermore, at conception, we don't know if we have one, two, three, or zero individuals, so how many individuals with rights are present at conception? Application of your logic puts you in so many fallacies. It is clear to everyone your assumptions of when human life is a human being is fundamentally flawed.

It is an appeal to emotion and now a strawman. I haven't asked you anything of rape victims. I suggest you read my posts instead of posting strawmen.

As I have posted in the past on here, there has to be a medical reason for an abortion at say 39 weeks. Examples would include anencephaly or something like Potter Sequence. I think many state laws are reasonable as written.

What justifies the deliberate killing of an innocent human being?

 

[abj13]

What justifies the deliberate killing of an innocent human being?

Ah I see, instead of addressing the multiple logical fallacies in your posts, all you have is an open-ended, poorly defined question?

Please define the following terms, since they are so vague as written nobody can discern what you mean by them:
1) Justifies
2) Deliberate
3) Killing
4) Innocent
5) Human being

By your own logic, an abortion of an ectopic pregnancy, which you define as a human being, would presumably meet your question, yes?