Tocky on 16/5/2023 at 15:20
Quote Posted by Pyrian
Science can tell us (roughly now and in more detail in the future) which brain functions start working at roughly what age. But there's never going to be some magic moment or clear dividing line. Brains... Grow. Little by little, bit by bit. Electrical brain activity can be detected in a fetus around week 5 to 6. It will continue to have substantial physical growth until early adolescence(!) and significant development until the mid-to-late 20's(!). The point at which it becomes a
person isn't going to be answered by having more details on this process; if anything, it's likely to just become muddier and muddier, because your
hope for assumption of a "provable fact" of the dividing line of personhood is not a thing that's ever going to happen. We
already know that a lot of brain function is already present at birth and a lot more is developed afterwards; the hypothesis that science will find some clear dividing line between pre-person-brain and person-brain is already disproven.
Nah.
Science can give us a base level for being a person based on upper brain function. The body being alive is nothing without that. Those either die on their own or live for only a short time. That base level would include all the development beyond its origin. That there are greater and lesser brain functions later is not important as far as continuation because that has already been decided by the medical community. That is at present what the abortion debate is about when you remove all the stupid religious crap which is along the same level as an earth centric universe. It does not get muddier with definition. It gets more clear.
As I said earlier, the dividing line is important, and getting closer to it thus important because of the laws Republicans are putting in place to punish the mother. The hypothesis that science will narrow down the dividing line hasn't been disproven at all. Even a close guess in favor of the evangelical crazies about that line is better than an all or nothing approach. Time to define the line better.
Also could folks stop just saying things are disproven that aren't? That stifles discussion and, as you can see, I won't be stifled. If you want to CLAIM something has been disproven then you have to SHOW it with examples of someone elses thinking on the subject or your own and it has to be fact based, not conjecture based on opinion but on physical reality.
Tocky on 16/5/2023 at 16:41
Quote Posted by Cipheron
Like a "heap", "person" has no scientific meaning, so the exact point something goes from non-personhood to personhood is not well defined either, and is a matter of opinion.
Quote:
The continuum fallacy (also known as the fallacy of the beard, line-drawing fallacy, or decision-point fallacy) is an informal fallacy related to the sorites paradox. Both fallacies cause one to erroneously reject a vague claim simply because it is not as precise as one would like it to be. Vagueness alone does not necessarily imply invalidity. The fallacy is the argument that two states or conditions cannot be considered distinct (or do not exist at all) because between them there exists a continuum of states.
This applies to "both sides" arguments, for example, the "when does an embryo become a person" debate.
A "heap" is a term science does not use and therefore does not apply here. Science uses specific measurements and terms. It's not like Justin Wilson cooking gumbo. Science can and does define. Science can define every ingredient and how much in the gumbo to the atom if it wished to spend that much time on it.
As to the continuum fallacy, science is not vague, it does not seek vagaries, it seeks definition. Science can define those states on the continuum. It can give more or less better than any other at a particular time because it measures. It measures along the continuum as well. It may not measure to the exact nanosecond but that is not what is needed for purposes of law.
Qooper on 17/5/2023 at 11:06
Quote Posted by Tocky
As I said earlier, the dividing line is important, and getting closer to it thus important because of the laws Republicans are putting in place to punish the mother.
I've told you before, I don't want this thread to become political. In this thread we won't talk about what the Republicans in the US are up to, or what the Christian Democrats here in Finland are doing, or even about the Labour Party in the UK. If you want to discuss politics, take that to another thread, thank you!
Once again I'm at work, but as soon as I have time, I'll write more.
Nicker on 17/5/2023 at 13:08
Back to arguing about arguing...
"I simply thought "The Thing" would be humorous and give you exact parameters for what I'm saying, that being that no part of us is the whole us. "
Ditto. Movie reference. So what's your problem? Calling an embryo "a mass of dividing cells" is describing it as an amorphous, impersonal collection of protoplasm, which seems like a good a fit for (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blob_(1988_film)) The Blob. and just as humorous as The Thing. Are there now different standards of analogous accuracy we have to meet? Or I am not allowed to make jokes?
Side note: "The Thing" actually misrepresented my parameters, so that's where the respect comes in. Nothing personal. Just me arguing about arguing.
You are making this very personal. There is no need for that. I am not a crypto-republican. Think of me as a sparing partner, not an enemy.
"Science uses specific measurements and terms. "
None of which you have applied or supplied. "A mass of dividing cells" is not a scientific term and by your own admission, there is no agreement in the scientific community of when an embryo becomes a person. Brain activity is no slam dunk, by the way. Not by a long shot, IMO.
The first clue that your argument is suspect is that your opponents use it as well. Either one of you is misusing it or it is a crap argument. And since the anti-choicers version has far more concision, they wear it better. And when your opponents use your own argument to greater effect, you need to find a better argument.
Please address this conundrum specifically, rather than simply dismissing as "some vague ephemeral philosophy". Denigration is not an argument.
As far as morality goes, you need to realise that "A mass of dividing cells" is a moral argument, in that it tries to dismiss the moral messiness by denying that it exists. But, as explained above, The Blob argument fails to do so.
Tocky on 17/5/2023 at 13:52
I don't have the problem. I was not the one who took offence and asked for respect. I was the one who said I don't need respect, remember? Other than pulling my hair out over declarations which are not then supported, I'm fine.
I'm sorry if some of the things I declare I don't give citations for but I just assume proven science is accepted. If there are things anyone wishes me to show work on I will. A mass of dividing cells is self-evident as a term. It's what the embryo IS for a time. Any pejorative connotation you wish to give it is on you. It's a simple term for a simple thing. And yes, it is scientifically valid. What added terms do you need? I guess I could give an exact number at an exact time or when they evolve into cells producing specific organs but does that really help? I don't see how but if it does I'll do it. Explain how you think it does and I will.
I couldn't care less if both sides use the scientific argument. I hope they do. I've laid it out painstakingly. I gave one citation for time period of electrical activity in the embryotic brain. Do you need others? For other stages perhaps? I'm unsure what you need. If you think it suspect show me where and I will elaborate. Phrases like "they wear it better" mean nothing. Science is science. It isn't for any side. It just is. Show me where it has been used to greater effect by my supposed opponents. My opponents want no abortion at all so that is highly doubtful. The science does not support that. The "new DNA" argument is just silly. New DNA is produced by lots of things. WHERE have I NOT painstakingly explained every step in my reasoning? Show me and I will explain further and produce citations if you want.
Just declaring that my opponents use my argument to greater effect does not fly because they don't.
Morality is a set of rules created to help us live together as a society. Since abortion is not murder of a person at the points in time I listed they do not apply. Finding the point at which one becomes a person is of paramount importance then. Remember the autonomy thing?
If there is anything you need further elaboration on let me know.
Also I'm curious as to what scientific measurements you require. Do you need to know the instruments used to measure the electrical impulses in the brain? I mean, you know what time is measured with and that is the only other measurement.
Also again, if brain activity is no slam dunk then why do doctors use it as a line of death when all other organs are functioning? Explain why what we are is NOT located in the brain and you have my full attention. If you need further elaboration of why I consider it to be I have no problem giving that.
You seem to think I've been making this personal. I'm not. I've been arguing science all along. If you take it otherwise then I can't help that. Know that I'm not aiming my responses at you but at your statements.
Oh, and let me know what conundrum you speak of. I haven't seen any opponent of science use science to any logical effect at all so how it has been? It is quite possible the conservatives have used it poorly as they don't actually believe in science. They do not use it to "more concision". They pick what they think will support their side but are shown it does not. How is that a conundrum? Is there a particular thing you think they have been "more concise" on? And BTW there is no argument better than provable science. Even morals have to have facts to apply them to. Facts are what science does.
Tocky on 17/5/2023 at 13:57
Quote Posted by Qooper
I've told you before, I don't want this thread to become political. In this thread we won't talk about what the Republicans in the US are up to, or what the Christian Democrats here in Finland are doing, or even about the Labour Party in the UK. If you want to discuss politics, take that to another thread, thank you!
Once again I'm at work, but as soon as I have time, I'll write more.
I tried multiple times to get this to go to the abortion thread but it kept being pulled back here and here is where you said you wanted it. Since it is Republicans and evangelicals who want to deprive a woman her right to choose then they must be brought in when laws are discussed as that too is a part of the issue. That cannot be separated for that reason.
What would you have me do? I can't leave it entirely out of the argument when it is so germane.
heywood on 17/5/2023 at 15:17
I assumed this was to be more of a meta thread about arguments.
In the beginning, it seemed like you guys were going to have something to say about how the abortion debate is framed, which might have fit in this thread, but instead it became a tit-for-tat. I guess you could consider this a lesson that you can't "win" an argument that depends on disputed definitions. And winning an argument on technical grounds doesn't sway opinions.
Tocky on 17/5/2023 at 17:43
Indeed, heywood, the only thing I would dispute about what you said is the part that you can't win an argument that depends on disputed definitions. You can win it but those who will only view it in an opinion based way will never accept the science based one so they will never know it has been won.
The framing is nothing new. It's the way medicine has worked on the issue for decades.
