Roe vs Wade Overturned

PKT_VOL

Veni, Vidi, Vici
Joined
Jun 12, 2009
Messages
15,809
Likes
5,177
Tell that to those nutty radicals over at Nova.
Does Science Need Falsifiability?
Another terrible article.

As much as I like Tegmark and Carroll, Popper>>>>>Tegmark/Carroll. Popper was one of best thinkers of the 20th century.

This isn't a new argument. The history of science is littered with theories which were speculated in the minds of brilliant individuals before science/technology could catch up to attempt to falsify them. Someone like Tegmark doesn't even really do science. He takes current falsifiable scientific theories and logically extrapolates the consequences of those theories assuming consistent assumptions about reality are made. They are fascinating, probably true if the scientific theories end up being "correct" (one can never really know, the real problem of falsification which ironically neither article addresses although the first article was somewhat close), but are philosophical speculative extrapolations buttressed by logic.

As for elegance determining truth, it is prima facie as dumb as it sounds. First, elegance is a value judgement of beauty. On a humorous note, imagine thinking evolution is more "elegant" than creation. Secondly, there is nothing whatsoever, even if there is universal acceptance among the human race of a theories elegance/beauty, which tethers such a theory to reality.
 

Vol8188

revolUTion in the air!
Joined
Mar 19, 2011
Messages
35,985
Likes
26,798
Again, it depends on how one defines those terms.

No different than if someone were to ask me the question, "does God exist?" Depending on how one defined "God" and what all such a concept entails, I could see a scenario where I would agree and I can see a scenario where I would not.
Instead of continual circles why not lay out the two scenarios?
 

PKT_VOL

Veni, Vidi, Vici
Joined
Jun 12, 2009
Messages
15,809
Likes
5,177
Instead of continual circles why not lay out the two scenarios?
Agree: Life forms (in the context of differentiated biological organisms) entail unique genetic information.

Disagree: Life forms are biological organisms which exhibit biological independence via autonomy and consciousness.

There can be plenty of viable variations of both definitions. The next problem becomes utility of the definitions. In the former, while trivially true for most cases of a mother versus an zygote, it would not suffice to differentiate identical twins as separate life forms. Additionally, it would also would not exclude haploid cells, mutated cells, viruses, mosaicism, transplanted tissue, etc. With the latter, you run into problems with the loaded concepts of "independence", "autonomy", and "consciousness". One could easily define those terms liberal enough to sway me to an agreeable position but lose any utility in the process.

Having said all that, what constitutes a "life form" is fundamentally not a "science" question but rather a philosophical question based on your larger working framework and furthermore does not matter a bit in the abortion conversation. The crux of the abortion debate is what constitutes personhood and when does that commence.
 

Vol8188

revolUTion in the air!
Joined
Mar 19, 2011
Messages
35,985
Likes
26,798
Agree: Life forms (in the context of differentiated biological organisms) entail unique genetic information.

Disagree: Life forms are biological organisms which exhibit biological independence via autonomy and consciousness.

There can be plenty of viable variations of both definitions. The next problem becomes utility of the definitions. In the former, while trivially true for most cases of a mother versus an zygote, it would not suffice to differentiate identical twins as separate life forms. Additionally, it would also would not exclude haploid cells, mutated cells, viruses, mosaicism, transplanted tissue, etc. With the latter, you run into problems with the loaded concepts of "independence", "autonomy", and "consciousness". One could easily define those terms liberal enough to sway me to an agreeable position but lose any utility in the process.

Having said all that, what constitutes a "life form" is fundamentally not a "science" question but rather a philosophical question based on your larger working framework and furthermore does not matter a bit in the abortion conversation. The crux of the abortion debate is what constitutes personhood and when does that commence.
What does autonomy or consciousness have to do with life? Neither of those are requirements for life.
 

PKT_VOL

Veni, Vidi, Vici
Joined
Jun 12, 2009
Messages
15,809
Likes
5,177
What does autonomy or consciousness have to do with life? Neither of those are requirements for life.
Less to do with requirements of life per se but more relevant differentiating life forms.

However, consciousness, broadly defined, dovetails with a generally accepted attribute of life being able to respond to the environment.
 

Vol8188

revolUTion in the air!
Joined
Mar 19, 2011
Messages
35,985
Likes
26,798
Less to do with requirements of life per se but more relevant differentiating life forms.

However, consciousness, broadly defined, dovetails with a generally accepted attribute of life being able to respond to the environment.
Neither are required to distinguish life forms. So you acted as if there was a scenario where you’d say the two are not separate life forms.

What’s that scenario?
 

PKT_VOL

Veni, Vidi, Vici
Joined
Jun 12, 2009
Messages
15,809
Likes
5,177
Neither are required to distinguish life forms.
I literally gave you an example (identical twins) where the first definition would fail but the second definition with those attributes would differentiate the life forms.

So you acted as if there was a scenario where you’d say the two are not separate life forms.

What’s that scenario?
I gave differing agreeable outcomes based up common contrasting definition scenarios.
 

Vol8188

revolUTion in the air!
Joined
Mar 19, 2011
Messages
35,985
Likes
26,798
I literally gave you an example (identical twins) where the first definition would fail but the second definition with those attributes would differentiate the life forms.



I gave differing agreeable outcomes based up common contrasting definition scenarios.
You’ve provided no different outcomes that I’ve seen. Where’s the scenario that says “abortion is only involving one life”?
 

PKT_VOL

Veni, Vidi, Vici
Joined
Jun 12, 2009
Messages
15,809
Likes
5,177
You’ve provided no different outcomes that I’ve seen. Where’s the scenario that says “abortion is only involving one life”?
I am not sure what you are not understanding.

There is the singular event, conception. Depending on how one defines and differentiates "life forms", I could affirm either one or two life forms. Either way, the question isn't one of science and does not address the crux of the abortion debate.
 

Vol8188

revolUTion in the air!
Joined
Mar 19, 2011
Messages
35,985
Likes
26,798
I am not sure what you are not understanding.

There is the singular event, conception. Depending on how one defines and differentiates "life forms", I could affirm either one or two life forms. Either way, the question isn't one of science and does not address the crux of the abortion debate.
What is your example where a pregnant woman would only be seen as one life form? That’s what I’m not understanding. You mention twins, but that’s a question 2 vs 3 human lives, not 1 vs 2.

So what’s the scenario where you’d agree that it’s only one life we are discussing?
 

PKT_VOL

Veni, Vidi, Vici
Joined
Jun 12, 2009
Messages
15,809
Likes
5,177
What is your example where a pregnant woman would only be seen as one life form?

So what’s the scenario where you’d agree that it’s only one life we are discussing?
See below. I stated both the example definition and the weakness of that definition.

Disagree: Life forms are biological organisms which exhibit biological independence via autonomy and consciousness.

There can be plenty of viable variations of both definitions. The next problem becomes utility of the definitions. In the former, while trivially true for most cases of a mother versus an zygote, it would not suffice to differentiate identical twins as separate life forms. Additionally, it would also would not exclude haploid cells, mutated cells, viruses, mosaicism, transplanted tissue, etc. With the latter, you run into problems with the loaded concepts of "independence", "autonomy", and "consciousness". One could easily define those terms liberal enough to sway me to an agreeable position but lose any utility in the process.
That’s what I’m not understanding. You mention twins, but that’s a question 2 vs 3 human lives, not 1 vs 2.
I said that twins undermine the sufficiency of merely using unique genetic information as differentiating criteria. Under that definition, identical twins would not separate life forms.
 

Vol8188

revolUTion in the air!
Joined
Mar 19, 2011
Messages
35,985
Likes
26,798
See below. I stated both the example definition and the weakness of that definition.





I said that twins undermine the sufficiency of merely using unique genetic information as differentiating criteria. Under that definition, identical twins would not separate life forms.
Yet neither of those things are requirements for life. Autonomy and consciousness have nothing to do with the question “is this alive” and “is this a separate living entity”. Because neither are requirements.

That’s where you’re losing me. I’ve yet to see you give me any scenario where a zygote could be seen as anything other than a 2nd living entity.
 

utvols88

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 23, 2009
Messages
36,490
Likes
81,974
Yet neither of those things are requirements for life. Autonomy and consciousness have nothing to do with the question “is this alive” and “is this a separate living entity”. Because neither are requirements.

That’s where you’re losing me. I’ve yet to see you give me any scenario where a zygote could be seen as anything other than a 2nd living entity.
Basic bacteria being a separate life to a koala undermines his arbitrary consciousness definition
 

PKT_VOL

Veni, Vidi, Vici
Joined
Jun 12, 2009
Messages
15,809
Likes
5,177
Yet neither of those things are requirements for life. Autonomy and consciousness have nothing to do with the question “is this alive” and “is this a separate living entity”. Because neither are requirements.

That’s where you’re losing me. I’ve yet to see you give me any scenario where a zygote could be seen as anything other than a 2nd living entity.
I am losing you because you cannot separate your own rejection of the second definition (in favor of some flavor of the former, which also has it faults) from the fact that others hold the some form of the second definition (think people like TRUT on this board).

Personally, my own definition would be in-between those two (unique genetic information would be necessary but not sufficient) which would have zygotes categorized into it. The problem there is that my definition of what constitutes personhood would exclude zygotes as I hold "life forms" and "personhood" as two very different things.
 

Gandalf

The Orange/White Wizard
Joined
Dec 7, 2012
Messages
5,448
Likes
14,375
Why does Lindsay Graham think I care what their abortion laws are in France? Germany, UK, Scandinavia, etc?

I couldn’t give fewer facks about what they are doing in Europe.

This is America, sir.
Lindsay Graham is sadly an embarrassment to the GOP. He is a weak follower without anyone to give him a good idea at the moment. This moronic bill of his with a partial federal abortion ban is imbecilic to the extreme. He is ok as long as there is someone with actual conservative ideas to push the bills and he can cheerlead for the cameras.

First, on principle, for the same reason Roe V Wade was bad, ANY Federal law on abortion (either permitting or banning) would be equally unconstitutional. It is left to the states to decide what is a lawful killing of another human. That capability exists federally only where national security, war or possibly foreign policy is concerned - or in the rare cases where it is a murder where federal has jurisdiction.

Second, it is horrible politics. Lindsay knows that the bill will NEVER pass and is just trying to get himself some cred with Trump conservatives because he has been such an utter WHORE for pork and other Biden initiatives. Meanwhile, his stupid statements gives progressives the very ammo they need to saber rattle to their base, who otherwise have checked out on this administration. But something like a national abortion ban can give them a reason to vote for the midterms. Its almost as if the left is PAYING Lindsay to be this stupid sometimes.
 

marcusluvsvols

Blue collar skoller
Joined
Jan 7, 2012
Messages
8,954
Likes
12,312
Fetuses smile for carrots but grimace over kale, study suggests | CNN

Not a person though...right liberal lackwits?

Or is CNN too far right to be a credible source? Lol

Maybe these scientists are all liars and the pictures and videos are deep fake frauds?

OR....its straight murder to kill these innocent babies in the womb and yall know this obvious truth. How DARE us other adults to expect these irresponsible folks do what responsible folks do like:

1.Abstain if not prepared
2. Use birth control pills
3.use a condom and spermicide
4. Have an IUD
5. Use plan B...up to 5 days after
6. Give baby up for adoption
7. Raise the child....

I guess we are complete lunatics to expect folks to choose ONE of these 7 responsible options....rather than murder innocent babies in the womb. If you actually believe that, you have serious problems and your judgment, logic, and decision making is deeply flawed and should not be trusted . Ever.
Please do the responsible thing yourself, and do not ever vote or have children yourself. You are not responsible enough to decide who should run government, or what is best for a child. Truth hurts sometimes.
 

rekinhavoc

Respect the Hemi! No Interviews.
Joined
Aug 22, 2007
Messages
12,397
Likes
24,005
‘He’s Never Seen a Vagina! Never Seen a Naked Woman!’ MSNBC Uproariously Mocks Lindsey Graham’s Sexuality as Ruhle’s Show Goes Off Rails

The tolerant left mocking someone for being gay like it is a bad thing . They gunning for the Alec Baldwin media award?


“And, the fact that he is telling women what to do with their bodies,” Gold began. She paused a second before Giles nodded and said, “Go for it.”

“He’s never seen a vagina! He’s never seen a naked woman!” Gold blurted, as the whole panel laughed it up, including Stephanie Ruhle. “And he is telling me?”

The implication that Gold was using to crack up the panel is one that’s made pretty often on the Democrat side, which is to suggest Graham is gay, apparently as an insult.

Amid the crosstalk and tittering, Ruhle added her own wink and nudge, saying, “We don’t know that for sure. We do not know that for sure.”

MSNBC’s Liz Plank said “It’s probably true, it’s probably true.”

“Judy we would refer to that as an unconfirmed report,” said CNBC’s Insana getting in on it.

“Someone needs to find out!” said Plank.

“I’m going to speculate…” Gold said.
 

Caculator

No sane person wants to live on planet of the apes
Joined
Nov 30, 2013
Messages
2,565
Likes
3,194
Elderly pro-lifer SHOT after argument over abortion in Michigan






An elderly pro-life conservative, who was canvassing for their abortion ballot proposal, was shot over the weekend after an argument about the issue in Michigan.




According to the report, the person who shot the elderly woman wasn’t apart of the argument.


Here’s more via Fox News:
An elderly pro-life volunteer in Michigan was shot in the shoulder while canvassing a neighborhood to discuss an abortion ballot proposal, according to the Right to Life of Michigan.
The “victim said that she was shot in the back/shoulder while leaving a residence during a heated conversation, and that the man who shot her was not a part of her conversation,” the pro-life group wrote in a press release Saturday. The unidentified woman is 83-years-old, according to police, though the Right to Life of Michigan identified her as 84 years old in the press release.
The woman was canvassing a neighborhood in Lake Odessa to discuss the state’s vote on Proposal 3, which would protect abortion access in the state. The state will vote on the proposal on Nov. 8 on the general election ballot.
“The victim does not know the identity or motive of her shooter. The victim is still recovering from her gunshot wound and wishes to remain anonymous while the criminal investigation proceeds,” the Michigan Right to Life press release stated.
Michigan State Police told Fox News Digital Saturday that the elderly woman was shot after a “verbal altercation while she was passing out pamphlets.”
The victim drove herself to the Lake Odessa Police Department after she was shot in the shoulder, according to state police. She was then taken to an area hospital, where she was treated and released.
The Michigan State Police is investigating the incident and the case remains open.
“We’re glad the victim is recovering, and our volunteers will continue knocking doors on Proposal 3,” Right to Life of Michigan official Chris Gast told Fox News Digital on Saturday.​
If it weren’t for Fox News or conservative-leaning media, you’d probably never hear about this 83-year-old pro-lifer getting shot.
And this is the second time in a couple weeks where someone on the right was shot after a reported political argument.
I’m sure Democrats will have an emergency meeting about their over-the-top rhetoric regarding abortion, given the violence against people on the right. Yeah, sure.
 

VN Store




Top