3 ms·

Not when you believe abortion is murder and a sin against God. There is no scientifically plausible basis for a ban on abortion - it's entirely rooted in Chris

by krapp 2y ago

Not when you believe abortion is murder and a sin against God. There is no scientifically plausible basis for a ban on abortion - it's entirely rooted in Christian fundamentalism, and those people do not believe in a middle ground.

tomp 2y ago
Well the scientific basis is that you're killing another human (the fetus, scientifically, is another human, with its own genetics). Of course, you still need a non-scientific, moral basis to decide whether murder is bad, and other circumstances pertaining to abortion (in general and each case specifically).
- mcphage 2y ago
  Both “killing” and “human” are linguistic and philosophical concepts, not scientific ones. So “killing another human” cannot rest upon a scientific basis.
  - tomp 2y ago
    How so? "kill" = "cause to cease living", "living" is pretty well defined (it's not entirely obvious for edge cases, like viruses, but quite obvious for cells) "human" = pretty obvious as well, simply look at genetics. I mean, obviously an offspring of two humans is a human (for the next 100k+ years)
- krapp 2y ago
  >Well the scientific basis is that you're killing another human (the fetus, scientifically, is another human, with its own genetics). Except killing another human is allowed in other circumstances, especially in Texas. Using "science" to make a special case for a fetus seems like a pretext when that science no longer applies outside the womb.
eadmund 2y ago
> There is no scientifically plausible basis for a ban on abortion Is there a scientifically plausible basis for a ban on other forms of homicide, or on genocide? Science just tells us that a 24-year-old Korean, a 6-year-old English child, an American five minutes before birth and a Frenchman 5 weeks before birth are all equally human beings and all equally different from any other human beings. It doesn’t have anything to say about the morality of killing any of them, or in what circumstances. If your moral position is ‘no homicide except in self defense,’ then that plus the scientific facts points in one direction. If your moral position is ‘homicide of slaves, children, fœtuses and other humans owned by another is permissible when the owner desires,’ then that plus the scientific facts points in another direction. If your moral position is ‘homicide of those without a functioning brain is permissible,’ then that plus the scientific facts points in yet another direction. Scientific facts on their own are just facts; they just talk about what is, not about what one should do or not do.
- mindslight 2y ago
  Science does not "tell us that" things are "all equally human beings" (the use of the term "human beings" here is already in the moral context). What it does do is allow use to draw inferences like "this thing will likely develop into a person" and "this thing likely won't". I do agree that the "science says" crowd is overstating the case in their own dogmatic way, but let's try not to lay the foundation to do the same thing just with the opposite conclusion.
muddi900 2y ago
I upvoted because it was unfairly downvoted. I disagree with the scientism presented in the comment it self. A secular, liberal-democratic society is based on property rights and bodily autonomy. In such a society, banning abortion makes no sense. Science has nothing to do with it.

by krapp 2y ago

tomp 2y ago

Well the scientific basis is that you're killing another human (the fetus, scientifically, is another human, with its own genetics). Of course, you still need a non-scientific, moral basis to decide whether murder is bad, and other circumstances pertaining to abortion (in general and each case specifically).

mcphage 2y ago
Both “killing” and “human” are linguistic and philosophical concepts, not scientific ones. So “killing another human” cannot rest upon a scientific basis.
- tomp 2y ago
  How so? "kill" = "cause to cease living", "living" is pretty well defined (it's not entirely obvious for edge cases, like viruses, but quite obvious for cells) "human" = pretty obvious as well, simply look at genetics. I mean, obviously an offspring of two humans is a human (for the next 100k+ years)
krapp 2y ago
>Well the scientific basis is that you're killing another human (the fetus, scientifically, is another human, with its own genetics). Except killing another human is allowed in other circumstances, especially in Texas. Using "science" to make a special case for a fetus seems like a pretext when that science no longer applies outside the womb.

eadmund 2y ago

> There is no scientifically plausible basis for a ban on abortion Is there a scientifically plausible basis for a ban on other forms of homicide, or on genocide? Science just tells us that a 24-year-old Korean, a 6-year-old English child, an American five minutes before birth and a Frenchman 5 weeks before birth are all equally human beings and all equally different from any other human beings. It doesn’t have anything to say about the morality of killing any of them, or in what circumstances. If your moral position is ‘no homicide except in self defense,’ then that plus the scientific facts points in one direction. If your moral position is ‘homicide of slaves, children, fœtuses and other humans owned by another is permissible when the owner desires,’ then that plus the scientific facts points in another direction. If your moral position is ‘homicide of those without a functioning brain is permissible,’ then that plus the scientific facts points in yet another direction. Scientific facts on their own are just facts; they just talk about what is, not about what one should do or not do.

mindslight 2y ago
Science does not "tell us that" things are "all equally human beings" (the use of the term "human beings" here is already in the moral context). What it does do is allow use to draw inferences like "this thing will likely develop into a person" and "this thing likely won't". I do agree that the "science says" crowd is overstating the case in their own dogmatic way, but let's try not to lay the foundation to do the same thing just with the opposite conclusion.

muddi900 2y ago

I upvoted because it was unfairly downvoted. I disagree with the scientism presented in the comment it self. A secular, liberal-democratic society is based on property rights and bodily autonomy. In such a society, banning abortion makes no sense. Science has nothing to do with it.