Any Good Scientific Pro-Life Arguments?

[Paranormal Inquirer]

Sorry, but the title of the other thread was bothering me.

[joobz]

To be fair, I think the title is fine.

It assumes, however, that all pro-life arguments are religious in nature. I think the thread has demonstrated that this is not the case. One could easily formulate non-religious (atheistic) arguments against abortion. Indeed, these arguments could be moral ethical in nature and not be routed in science.

As such, the thread you pose here is unique and distinct from the other one.


Thanks for the comparison thought. I think it a good one.

[Alex Libman]

I'm 100% pro-choice, but if someone held a gun to my head and forced me to make a "scientific pro-life argument", here's what I'd mumble:

Um, hmmm....

What's a human being anyway? How can you tell if something is a human, a very sophisticated humanoid android, or a watermelon? What's the difference between pimple puss and a day-old fetus? How do you tell if you're holding your own nose or someone else's?

DNA!

Every unique combination of human DNA must be considered a separate human being, regardless of intelligence, size, and whether or not it is a parasite depending on a host that owns its body and wants to evict it. Why did I make this leap of logic? Because you're holding a friggin' gun to my head!

Now, since I had to make this leap of logic, we have to be consistent: Identical twins only get one personhood, but parasitic twins and chimeras are really multiple people, and, yes, they do get more than one vote. Any lab worker who drops a petri dish with a thousand fertilized eggs is guilty of genocide! (Unless they all had the same DNA, in which case it's merely singular murder.) And dead people aren't officially dead until their DNA falls apart, and should merely be referred to as "metabolically challenged citizens" in the meantime.

OK, that's the best I can do. If you want a collectivist "we must increase our birthrate or the other tribe will overrun us" argument for prohibition on abortion, I could probably make it sound better. And of course pro-choice arguments are my specialty. Making those is so easy - using logic almost feels like cheating!

[six7s]

Originally Posted by JohnTheRevelator

Sorry, but the title of the other thread was bothering me.

The title of this thread is only marginally better, insofar as it perpetuates the myth that 'pro-life' is anything other than a euphemism for 'pro-illegal-abortions'

[fuelair]

Originally Posted by Alex Libman

I'm 100% pro-choice, but if someone held a gun to my head and forced me to make a "scientific pro-life argument", here's what I'd mumble:

Um, hmmm....

What's a human being anyway? How can you tell if something is a human, a very sophisticated humanoid android, or a watermelon? What's the difference between pimple puss and a day-old fetus? How do you tell if you're holding your own nose or someone else's?

DNA!

Every unique combination of human DNA must be considered a separate human being, regardless of intelligence, size, and whether or not it is a parasite depending on a host that owns its body and wants to evict it. Why did I make this leap of logic? Because you're holding a friggin' gun to my head!

Now, since I had to make this leap of logic, we have to be consistent: Identical twins only get one personhood, but parasitic twins and chimeras are really multiple people, and, yes, they do get more than one vote. Any lab worker who drops a petri dish with a thousand fertilized eggs is guilty of genocide! (Unless they all had the same DNA, in which case it's merely singular murder.) And dead people aren't officially dead until their DNA falls apart, and should merely be referred to as "metabolically challenged citizens" in the meantime.

OK, that's the best I can do. If you want a collectivist "we must increase our birthrate or the other tribe will overrun us" argument for prohibition on abortion, I could probably make it sound better. And of course pro-choice arguments are my specialty. Making those is so easy - using logic almost feels like cheating!

One of the weird things I do is congratulate anyone - whether I agree with them on their other posts or not - when they speak truth. Congratulations, I find nothing to fault on this and your examples are well done and entertaining. Well said and well thought!!

[Paranormal Inquirer]

Originally Posted by six7s

The title of this thread is only marginally better, insofar as it perpetuates the myth that 'pro-life' is anything other than a euphemism for 'pro-illegal-abortions'

1.) "Pro-choice" is also a euphemism for "pro- abortion."
2.) I think "pro-life" is actually a better euphemism for "anti-abortion."
3.) I understand the point you're making, but I chose to better emphasize the "atheistic" part of the title of the other thread.

[Redtail]

I don't think there is a "Good" Scientific Pro-Life argument. For the record I'm against abortion. I'm an adopted child, I wrote a letter to my biological mother stating that I wanted to know about the medical history, no strings attached, but If she was ok with it I wanted to meet her. She agreed to meet and over dinner she broke down crying and told me that she tried to abort me... Twice. Both times something went wrong and she decided that I was meant to be here but she couldn't handle it so she put me up for adoption.

I have to say here that I have a joke when I go to get gas and I notice that the powerball is at 100 mil. I drop a buck on it because I see myself as the luckiest guy in the world but I know I won't win because I already did when my parents (and their families) lied and cheated so they could be cleared to adopt me.

So yeah, I think abortion (excluding extreme circumstances) is wrong. I would be very hurt if my daughter chose it or my son pushed it. Having said that it, is utimatly their choice so once I made my displeasure known that would be the end of it. BECAUSE IT'S THEIR CHOICE.

I know that my views are based on emotion. I don't see that there is any scientific reason for what I feel. But I do know that for the vast majority, it is a decision that they will deal with for the rest of their lives.

I see no reason to hound them.

I see no reason to force them to adhere to my thinking.

I see no reason to risk their well being because of my problem with their decision.

Just my 2 cents.

[six7s]

Originally Posted by JohnTheRevelator

1.) "Pro-choice" is also a euphemism for "pro- abortion."

I'd agree with you if you said the term pro-choice implies that all women should have the choice to have their unwanted foetuses aborted by highly-trained and well-equipped professionals in a safe, hygienic environment with access to pre and post op advice and support

Originally Posted by JohnTheRevelator

2.) I think "pro-life" is actually a better euphemism for "anti-abortion."

Better than what?

Originally Posted by JohnTheRevelator

3.) I understand the point you're making, but I chose to better emphasize the "atheistic" part of the title of the other thread.

Fary nuff

However, I suspect that - like atheists, aleprechaunists, aphilatelists and aspeleologists - scientists are not auto-magickally indoctrinated into one particular school of thought. Consequently, I have a hunch that there may well be a rather diverse range (in both breadth and depth) of opinion related to the 'every fertilised egg is sacred' meme

[Marquis de Carabas]

Science shouldn't set policy, merely inform it. Professor Yaffle summed up the abortion issue quite handily today in another thread (I'd link to it, but I'm a lazy bastard). There is a line we, as a society, must draw: at what point subsequent to conception are we dealing with a human being? We can, and should, consult the best scientific data available about fetal development when deciding where to draw the line, and the best projections about the effects (on the mother, on the baby, on society) of having a line drawn at any particular point), but science cannot tell us where the line is. It can only give us the information needed to make an informed decision.

[joobz]

Originally Posted by Marquis de Carabas

Science shouldn't set policy, merely inform it. Professor Yaffle summed up the abortion issue quite handily today in another thread (I'd link to it, but I'm a lazy bastard). There is a line we, as a society, must draw: at what point subsequent to conception are we dealing with a human being? We can, and should, consult the best scientific data available about fetal development when deciding where to draw the line, and the best projections about the effects (on the mother, on the baby, on society) of having a line drawn at any particular point), but science cannot tell us where the line is. It can only give us the information needed to make an informed decision.

I concur.