I never said I supported restrictions on abortion, I just said I was bothered by the long term implications for selection of individuals, and the reasons behind them.Originally Posted by The Atheist
Is it so outrageous to ask people to consider their reasons for getting an abortion before having one? Abortion in itself I do not consider to be wrong, but when we guide our reasons for it through bias and prejudice then we are allowing something wrong to influence our decisions.
Now I'm really lost.
I meant this comment:
I took that to mean you supported women's rights to have abortion.
This seems a contradiction to me.
Pro-abortion people almost exclusively consider abortion a woman's right, and as such, I don't think divisions in reasons for abortion are appropriate. Any abortion is done for reasons which may be - and probably are - subject to individual biases and influences.
Who has the right to decide which reasons are "right" and "wrong"?
Thanks!
As always, it's about the maths. My wife's chances of DS were about 1 in 200, which was lengthened to 1 in 2500 with a nucal fold ultrasound. Amnioscentesis can give you a 100% answer, but as the process iteself involves a 1% chance of miscarriage, we just played the odds that said it was 25 times more dangerous to have amnio than wait & see.
With the odds, it would have been a major surprise if something was wrong, but we were certainly still very happy to see a "normal" baby!
I regret that this discussion has devolved into a debate on abortion. I have my own strong feelings on the issue, but arguing this matter online is truly nothing more than a slapfight for moral high ground. Discussing eugenics is the most efficient way for believers to portray non-believers as callous and amoral, without having to engage in anything more intellectual than moralistic sloganeering.
Despite Nick's reservations, I stand by what I said about believers being arrogant. I believe it's the height of presumption to put faith on a level with rational contemplation or genuine moral thinking. I think religious believers who try to put God in science are woefully misguided.
Regards,
Istvan
Where did I bring God into anything, I don't believe in God, goddesses, or any higher being in any which way. I am an atheist and have never belonged to any religious institution in my entire life.
Pro-abortion legally is exclusively a woman's right, however there is no need to conflate that with an argument about the morality of it. I don't think fetuses are human beings, I don't think they have moral rights in and of themselves. What I think is morally wrong is to take decisions based on prejudice that excludes certain types of individuals from existing. It is no different from refusing a job to someone for no other reason than they being part of some minority group. This all hinges on whether one believes groups can have moral status, and that they have a right to exist.
i.e.
Aborting a baby because of some trait you find icky = wrong
Aborting a baby because of financial limitations, rape, personal inability to raise any sort of baby. etc. = permissible
Last edited by OrphanPip; 11-09-2009 at 09:47 AM.
But how do you decide that abortion is chosen through "bias and prejudice?" It is a choice, and one choses to act for reasons. Except for purely reflexive acts that seem to avoid "choice" (and this is arguable), every willed act involves conscious or unconscious choices. One could argue that all choice involves bias and prejudice.
I'm not speaking in legal terms. In practicality I support the full autonomous choice of individual women, because it is the only way to ensure a free choice by the woman and it is her body that is at issue.
That being said, certainly unconscious bias plays a part in the decisions of individuals, but that isn't to say people shouldn't make a conscious effort to avoid making decisions on prejudice. At the least through self reflection one can help mitigate the probability of making overtly prejudicial decisions.
It's all well and fine to complain about people being trapped in their rigid ideas, but let's keep our wits about us. Is it unreasonably dogmatic to say that we know the Earth orbits the Sun? Are we being closed-minded by calling anyone that denies species evolution wrong?
I'm trying to demonstrate that there are certain things that aren't really matters of opinion. Through a cumulative historical process of empirical evidential inquiry, we're in a position to make pronouncements about reality that it's folly to deny. We don't believe DNA is the basis of heredity because it makes us feel good to believe it, we do so because of the evidence from many avenues of research.
I for one am fed up with being characterized as dogmatic for expecting people to present evidence for the beliefs they express in public, or not to express them at all. Religious people should expect their beliefs to be scrutinized and criticized like every other claim in society. And if their ideas are found wanting, they should stop making it sound like they're the victims of materialist dogmatism and face up to the fact that such beliefs should be kept in private where they belong.
Regards,
Istvan
Couldn't agree more.
The persecution syndrome fits the theology though. They were expecting it all along.
I'm glad that you explained that. I've been saying the same thing over and over and over again for the last six years to both people who believe in creationism AND people who believe in evolution but have no idea how natural selection works. Things just are, there's no better than or worse than, there's just fit for a certain environment and unfit. Unfit could be fit in other circumstances.
My issue with evolution is, as you and I have already discussed, that evolution is not an alternative to creationism because evolution doesn't explain the origin of life. In order for evolution to work, there has to be a pre-existing species for natural selection to work on. Abiogenisis is the REAL alternative to creationism, and every theory that I've read about abiogenisis has been extreamly stupid and based on very flimsy evidence. So the whole "Creationism VS. Evolution" debate is silly, because evolution isn't a foil of creationism. Evolution doesn't even disprove religion, it just disproves the christian creation myth that everything was made as-is. Evolution and intelligent design could co-exist.
Creationism is a cop-out, and so is abiogenisis. I very strongly believe that both are wrong. However life on this planet originated, we have absolutely no idea. If I were a betting girl, I'd put my money on aliens.
__________________
"Personal note: When I was a little kid my mother told me not to stare into the sun. So once when I was six, I did. At first the brightness was overwhelming, but I had seen that before. I kept looking, forcing myself not to blink, and then the brightness began to dissolve. My pupils shrunk to pinholes and everything came into focus and for a moment I understood. The doctors didn't know if my eyes would ever heal."
-Pi
Aliens is a bigger cop-out than abiogenesis, you're just shifting the question to where the alien life first came into existence.Creationism is a cop-out, and so is abiogenisis. I very strongly believe that both are wrong. However life on this planet originated, we have absolutely no idea. If I were a betting girl, I'd put my money on aliens.
Abiogenesis is not a cop-out because it involves at least an attempt to experimentally demonstrate the possibility of chemical evolution. There is substantive research going on in this field, with a number of researches trying to generate proto-cells, and then Craig Venter is working on a project to gradually decrease the genes in a prokaryotic cell to find the base requirements for a functioning cell. Most of the main hypotheses of abiogenesis involve sound arguments that make a lot more sense than an old man in the sky or a unicorn fart starting life.
Excluding wackjobs like Lovelock and his Gaia hypothesis.
I was joking.
Yes it is a cop-out, because even though they are ATTEMPTING to obtain evidence, they ACTUALLY HAVE zippo. Coming up with a theory that's based on nothing is not science. Actually, it sound a whole lot like faith. I know all about abiogenisis experiments that attempt to re-create the origin of life, there's one going on two floors up from my labs at the University of Alberta. So far they've obtained absolutely no evidence, and my prof believes that they're wasting their time (not to mention a whole lot of our money). All of the biology profs whose lectures I've attended or who I've worked with have basically told me that all of the current abiogenisis theories are almost definately crap, and that however life originated we don't have a clue. We're ignorant, neither science nor religion even comes close to answering all of life's big questions. People who pretend that they know everything because their ideas have a big label on them that reads "SCIENCE" are delusional (not to mention pretty un-scientific).
__________________
"Personal note: When I was a little kid my mother told me not to stare into the sun. So once when I was six, I did. At first the brightness was overwhelming, but I had seen that before. I kept looking, forcing myself not to blink, and then the brightness began to dissolve. My pupils shrunk to pinholes and everything came into focus and for a moment I understood. The doctors didn't know if my eyes would ever heal."
-Pi
First of all, abiogenesis is not a theory, it is something that must of happened unless you want to bring in supernatural causes. The hypotheses that attempt to explain abiogenesis are not acknowledged by anyone to be anything more than possible explanations. The fact that these hypotheses are at least testable and hinge on possible evidence makes them superior than any propositions of divine intervention. It is absurd to just shut off a line of inquiry because you believe it to be a dead-end.
Straw man alert!
I don't know any scientifically-minded people who claim to know everything. In fact, they're honest about realizing how much there is left to know. Inductive reasoning emphasizes the effect of new information on the theories we hold dear, so scientific inquiry only ever claims to be provisionally reliable. As has been said already, nothing is ever proven scientifically.
This stands in rather marked contrast to religious faith, which claims to know a lot of things that are mere fantasy on no better grounds than that the believer believes very strongly in them.
What were you saying about "delusional"?
Regards,
Istvan
Well, you know what they say about unfounded beliefs...Creationism is a cop-out, and so is abiogenisis. I very strongly believe that both are wrong. However life on this planet originated, we have absolutely no idea. If I were a betting girl, I'd put my money on aliens.
I'll ask then; if creationism, abiogenesis and aliens are all false, what other option is there.
We know that life arose, and the choices are supernatural or natural. If natural, there was clearly some process which started it.
I think you might mean, "current abiogenesis theories are rubbish".
Wish I knew what happened to Lovelock. He must've gone mad at some stage. Probably a woman....
I think you're getting several other things confused as well.
You seem to seek "evidence", yet since abiogenesis occurred some ~4 billion years ago, we can't even replicate the world of that time aside from some very broad known data. The only evidence available will be if some scientist creates life, and even then, that would be no proof that it's how life began.
I'm quite happy to say that we don't have a clue how it happened, and we may never do - just like the birth of the universe, we're starting with no data at all trying to work out a couple of the most difficult engineering problems in history.
We're trying to do the equivalent of asking a caveman to build the Hoover Dam. It's not going to be apparent overnight.
As to biology professors who claim that all current abiogenesis theories are rot, that sounds too much like professional jealousy for my liking. If they're willing to deny current research, they need to be at least offer an alternative before rubbishing others. If they don't have a competing theory, then they're very peculiar biologists. Invite them along.
Yes. Abiogenesis is a logical point to begin explaining the origin of life, unless you want to assume that "life" existed from the beginning of the material universe, which to me is an unscientific approach. It's hard to imagine how life began from non-living matter, but doing so is more intellectually honest than other approaches, like the seeding of alien life from outer space. Darwin never worried about the origin of life. He "merely" concerned himself with explaining how it evolved after it came into being.
What he came up with, evolution by natural selection, is a powerful theory that explains the behavior of living things, within the limits of our current understanding of life, just as Newton's understanding of matter, force, and motion provided a powerful understanding of the universe. But neither Newton nor Darwin have the last word on the nature of the non-living and living universe, and neither addressed the origins of matter, energy, life, and the "laws" that describe them. Those who try to explain the origins of these things are dealing with a much more difficult problem.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote