Author Topic: Autocatalysis, Hammers, and How We're Defending Abortion Wrong  (Read 5133 times)

PoFP

  • Word-Salad Enthusiast and Terrified Meat Sack
  • Outlandish
  • ***
  • Posts: 13037
    • View Profile
Re: Autocatalysis, Hammers, and How We're Defending Abortion Wrong
« Reply #30 on: April 18, 2017, 07:40:19 pm »
PoFP, I'm fascinated that you're approaching this from a moral stance, and your apparent solution is an attempt to manipulate and warp a person's religious texts and beliefs and essentially trick them into agreeing with you.

I can live with manipulation of people that are willingly offering themselves up for manipulation, knowingly, if that means we can avoid another disaster like the Trump administration. Doing the right thing is for people who have already won and want to continue to be in power. We can start pressing for truth and transparency once we've secured our position.

At least if a liberal I don't like becomes powerful, they'll still kinda want the whole system to function. I can deal with political differences.

I just see absolutely no value in trying to convince the religious conviction out of someone in order to get them to stop believing anything. The amount of time and effort that goes into doing a thing like that on purpose is so immense and so likely to fail anyway that it's a fool's errand. No amount of biological or cognitive science is going to sway one person, let alone enough people to change the dynamics of the debate.

Maybe the need to do this arises from some weird desire to have everyone on the same page, or in thinking that a lasting truce cannot be built between opposing sides until they agree on some very basic facts that just happen to saw the legs out from under one or the other of them. But it seems to me that it's beyond useless to pursue any such goal. We'll never have a frame of reference common to the two sides that includes the definition of life or the existence of a soul, so it's a waste to even try.

What we can agree on is what to do about the situation we are in right now. Presumably, the anti-choice crusaders want to end abortion. It makes a lot more sense to me to show them how their current tactics are unlikely to succeed in that goal and give them an alternative that can succeed without any need to threaten their religious or moral convictions and also with a long-term understanding that simple prohibition is a failure of an idea no matter how strictly they imagine it can be enforced. They won't like the moral fuzziness of it, but at least it isn't a direct assault on their moral foundation. And the pro-choice side won't like the continued existence of a faction of people who pass moral judgment against a woman's basic bodily autonomy, but at least it's a moral judgment rather than a criminal one.

I completely agree with the bottom part, and feel like the top part isn't applying to the conversation anymore. I think we can reformulate our arguments to be viable and still take the "Let's lower abortion rate through preventative means to lower the incarceration rate" approach at the same time.

I mean, you do see what I'm saying about the whole "a valid argument is better than no argument at all" part right? No argument causes us to lose support, whereas a valid argument doesn't make us necessarily gain a ton of support (We get new millennials that are introduced to the debate), but we also don't lose any at all.

Like, your strategy involves already having the political influence to alter policy, and my strategy is about ensuring that political influence is there, and stays there. They're really just better off in tandem.

It's much easier for those media barons to develop their tag lines that get slurred at the dinner table if there isn't a valid counter-argument being made. Social media does the work for these people if you let it. Saying nothing looks like accepting defeat.
Listen carefully. I don't have much time, and I only have 462 characters left. I'm a scientist from Area 52 (Area 51 was used to draw attention from Area 52, where the aliens were ACTUALLY stored) who was working on neural interfacing with networked devices. In an experiment gone wrong, I accidentally uploaded my mind to the internet. In the 2 seconds I had before my mind scrambled itself with the world's network traffic, I was able to store this snippet in this random internet signature. If you're reading this, let the world know tha

LMNO

  • Lubricated and Rabid Lungfish of Impending Sexdoom
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 87066
  • Internet Fuckweasel of Haunted Pork Dimensions.
    • View Profile
    • Earfatigue Productions: When it has to sound like you give a shit.
Re: Autocatalysis, Hammers, and How We're Defending Abortion Wrong
« Reply #31 on: April 18, 2017, 07:58:36 pm »
See, that's where I don't think you're seeing the hidden arguments.  BASIC programming jokes aside, the argument is:

"I believe life starts at conception."

"I don't believe life starts at conception."

The reasoning for these conclusions come from different places, but they both exist. 

You don't hear a lot of pro-choice people explicitly say this, because there's really no point to it.  "Women's rights" isn't used because there's no response available; it's used to shift context and reframe.  If one side tries to gain a moral advantage by insisting life begins at conception, the other side shifts the argument away from the nebulous religious and biological arguments, and reframes it as a woman's right -- that way, the other side feels has to assume (or admit) an anti-woman point of view, losing a portion of moral ground.

But you know what?  This is just another man talking about abortion.  I'll just re-quote QG.

The pro-choice people I know who were raised pro-life were converted by arguments of reducing abortions through education and contraceptive availability, and from there walking back on late term bans (since most late term abortions are non-viable fetuses and/or threatening the life of the mother), and eventually walking back on all abortion access.

Compassion sells, not science.

I swear to God(dess) if anyone with a penis WELL ACTUALLYs me on this one they will wake up short one testicle.

PoFP

  • Word-Salad Enthusiast and Terrified Meat Sack
  • Outlandish
  • ***
  • Posts: 13037
    • View Profile
Re: Autocatalysis, Hammers, and How We're Defending Abortion Wrong
« Reply #32 on: April 18, 2017, 08:27:56 pm »
See, that's where I don't think you're seeing the hidden arguments.  BASIC programming jokes aside, the argument is:

"I believe life starts at conception."

"I don't believe life starts at conception."

The reasoning for these conclusions come from different places, but they both exist. 

You don't hear a lot of pro-choice people explicitly say this, because there's really no point to it.  "Women's rights" isn't used because there's no response available; it's used to shift context and reframe.  If one side tries to gain a moral advantage by insisting life begins at conception, the other side shifts the argument away from the nebulous religious and biological arguments, and reframes it as a woman's right -- that way, the other side feels has to assume (or admit) an anti-woman point of view, losing a portion of moral ground.


Right, my point is, doing the same thing they're doing (And not in a better/more effective way, might I add) is not going to work. You have to do them one better, or do something different.

I mean, you see how killing babies sounds a lot worse than not liking women, right? I'd rather be stuck in a room with a guy accused of smacking some girl's ass than some guy accused of killing a baby. If that's supposed to be strategic moral re-positioning, that's a terrible way to do it.

The pro-choice people I know who were raised pro-life were converted by arguments of reducing abortions through education and contraceptive availability, and from there walking back on late term bans (since most late term abortions are non-viable fetuses and/or threatening the life of the mother), and eventually walking back on all abortion access.

Compassion sells, not science.

I swear to God(dess) if anyone with a penis WELL ACTUALLYs me on this one they will wake up short one testicle.

Nah, I'm right there with you. Sounds like supporting evidence of Vex's original solution. It's a winning strategy.
Listen carefully. I don't have much time, and I only have 462 characters left. I'm a scientist from Area 52 (Area 51 was used to draw attention from Area 52, where the aliens were ACTUALLY stored) who was working on neural interfacing with networked devices. In an experiment gone wrong, I accidentally uploaded my mind to the internet. In the 2 seconds I had before my mind scrambled itself with the world's network traffic, I was able to store this snippet in this random internet signature. If you're reading this, let the world know tha

tyrannosaurus vex

  • a gas giant of idiots
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 26549
    • View Profile
Re: Autocatalysis, Hammers, and How We're Defending Abortion Wrong
« Reply #33 on: April 18, 2017, 09:26:18 pm »
But you know what?  This is just another man talking about abortion.  I'll just re-quote QG.

Most relevant statement ITT.
Evil and Unfeeling Arse-Flenser From The City of the Damned.

Mesozoic Mister Nigel

  • v=1/3πr2h
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 687093
  • The sky tastes like red exuberance.
    • View Profile
Im guessing it was January 2007, a meeting in Bethesda, we got a bag of bees and just started smashing them on the desk, Charles Wick said. It was very complicated.


Mesozoic Mister Nigel

  • v=1/3πr2h
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 687093
  • The sky tastes like red exuberance.
    • View Profile
Re: Autocatalysis, Hammers, and How We're Defending Abortion Wrong
« Reply #35 on: April 18, 2017, 09:41:17 pm »

My point, as well as the conservatives'  point is that bodily autonomy is irrelevant in this debate until "a wedge is driven between fetus and baby." Again, having a vagina doesn't give someone the right to kill babies.

Damn it, just the other day I commented to Salty that you appeared not to be quite so much of a complete idiot anymore.

Thanks for proving me wrong. AGAIN.
Im guessing it was January 2007, a meeting in Bethesda, we got a bag of bees and just started smashing them on the desk, Charles Wick said. It was very complicated.


Mesozoic Mister Nigel

  • v=1/3πr2h
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 687093
  • The sky tastes like red exuberance.
    • View Profile
Re: Autocatalysis, Hammers, and How We're Defending Abortion Wrong
« Reply #36 on: April 18, 2017, 09:43:00 pm »
I remember like 5 years ago when most people who were even Christian were either undecided and or indifferent to abortion, and were generally moderate about social issues.

OMG

whut 

Are you literally 12?

:lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
Im guessing it was January 2007, a meeting in Bethesda, we got a bag of bees and just started smashing them on the desk, Charles Wick said. It was very complicated.


Mesozoic Mister Nigel

  • v=1/3πr2h
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 687093
  • The sky tastes like red exuberance.
    • View Profile
Re: Autocatalysis, Hammers, and How We're Defending Abortion Wrong
« Reply #37 on: April 18, 2017, 09:52:47 pm »
ITT FP actually somehow made it to adulthood (?) without ever noticing that the argument about viability outside the womb has been hashed out endlessly since the dawn of safe surgical abortion.

How

how is this possible

has he simply lived in a hole in the ground in the middle of nowhere his entire life? Is this even for real, or is it an AMAZING KenM style cluelessness troll? Can he use Google? https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&rlz=1C5CHFA_enUS703US703&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=abortion+viability+argument

THESE AND MANY MORE MYSTERIES AWAIT IN THE ANNALS OF PEEDEE.
Im guessing it was January 2007, a meeting in Bethesda, we got a bag of bees and just started smashing them on the desk, Charles Wick said. It was very complicated.


MithridatesXXIII

  • Outlandish
  • ***
  • Posts: 3638
  • I am yeti
    • View Profile
Re: Autocatalysis, Hammers, and How We're Defending Abortion Wrong
« Reply #38 on: April 18, 2017, 09:55:38 pm »
Viability outside of the womb is not the end all be all of personhood and moral status.

MithridatesXXIII

  • Outlandish
  • ***
  • Posts: 3638
  • I am yeti
    • View Profile
Re: Autocatalysis, Hammers, and How We're Defending Abortion Wrong
« Reply #39 on: April 18, 2017, 10:20:27 pm »
Suppose your argument rests upon the viability of the of the fetus apart from the mother. Babies are being born with the ability to survive premature birth because of technology. Has the child's viability increased? It is obviously conceivable that further advances can reduce this length of time to the point that a just-fertilized egg could be transferred to a machine. The viability argument fails at this time, if the mother would otherwise choose to terminate the pregnancy.

PoFP

  • Word-Salad Enthusiast and Terrified Meat Sack
  • Outlandish
  • ***
  • Posts: 13037
    • View Profile
Re: Autocatalysis, Hammers, and How We're Defending Abortion Wrong
« Reply #40 on: April 18, 2017, 10:26:42 pm »
ITT FP actually somehow made it to adulthood (?) without ever noticing that the argument about viability outside the womb has been hashed out endlessly since the dawn of safe surgical abortion.

How

how is this possible

has he simply lived in a hole in the ground in the middle of nowhere his entire life? Is this even for real, or is it an AMAZING KenM style cluelessness troll? Can he use Google? https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&rlz=1C5CHFA_enUS703US703&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=abortion+viability+argument

THESE AND MANY MORE MYSTERIES AWAIT IN THE ANNALS OF PEEDEE.

Obviously it's been hashed out before. That doesn't mean the argument shouldn't be made anymore. I'm referring to current debates that are had, not old ones.

I remember like 5 years ago when most people who were even Christian were either undecided and or indifferent to abortion, and were generally moderate about social issues.

OMG

whut 

Are you literally 12?

:lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:

What I meant by this is that vocalized opinions about the topic that I heard expressed by religious people and non-religious people alike, were mostly in support or indifferent. Not that there weren't large numbers of people non-vocally hating abortion the entire time. And obviously there were people avidly against it the entire time who were vocal, they were just much more of a minority.


My point, as well as the conservatives'  point is that bodily autonomy is irrelevant in this debate until "a wedge is driven between fetus and baby." Again, having a vagina doesn't give someone the right to kill babies.

Damn it, just the other day I commented to Salty that you appeared not to be quite so much of a complete idiot anymore.

Thanks for proving me wrong. AGAIN.

So, did you not read further clarifications on this line made throughout the post/thread? Or do you think that I think abortion is killing babies? Or do you think that being female does give you a right to kill babies?
Listen carefully. I don't have much time, and I only have 462 characters left. I'm a scientist from Area 52 (Area 51 was used to draw attention from Area 52, where the aliens were ACTUALLY stored) who was working on neural interfacing with networked devices. In an experiment gone wrong, I accidentally uploaded my mind to the internet. In the 2 seconds I had before my mind scrambled itself with the world's network traffic, I was able to store this snippet in this random internet signature. If you're reading this, let the world know tha

PoFP

  • Word-Salad Enthusiast and Terrified Meat Sack
  • Outlandish
  • ***
  • Posts: 13037
    • View Profile
Re: Autocatalysis, Hammers, and How We're Defending Abortion Wrong
« Reply #41 on: April 18, 2017, 10:31:46 pm »
Suppose your argument rests upon the viability of the of the fetus apart from the mother. Babies are being born with the ability to survive premature birth because of technology. Has the child's viability increased? It is obviously conceivable that further advances can reduce this length of time to the point that a just-fertilized egg could be transferred to a machine. The viability argument fails at this time, if the mother would otherwise choose to terminate the pregnancy.

Growing the fetus in another vessel does not make it less or more autocatalytic at any stage in the development. When it's capable of being detached from a vessel that supports its growth, and is able to continue that growth and development with its own systems and external food/energy molecules, it is autocatalytic. Whether or not that vessel is alive is irrelevant.
Listen carefully. I don't have much time, and I only have 462 characters left. I'm a scientist from Area 52 (Area 51 was used to draw attention from Area 52, where the aliens were ACTUALLY stored) who was working on neural interfacing with networked devices. In an experiment gone wrong, I accidentally uploaded my mind to the internet. In the 2 seconds I had before my mind scrambled itself with the world's network traffic, I was able to store this snippet in this random internet signature. If you're reading this, let the world know tha

MithridatesXXIII

  • Outlandish
  • ***
  • Posts: 3638
  • I am yeti
    • View Profile
Re: Autocatalysis, Hammers, and How We're Defending Abortion Wrong
« Reply #42 on: April 18, 2017, 10:39:54 pm »
Suppose your argument rests upon the viability of the of the fetus apart from the mother. Babies are being born with the ability to survive premature birth because of technology. Has the child's viability increased? It is obviously conceivable that further advances can reduce this length of time to the point that a just-fertilized egg could be transferred to a machine. The viability argument fails at this time, if the mother would otherwise choose to terminate the pregnancy.

Growing the fetus in another vessel does not make it less or more autocatalytic at any stage in the development. When it's capable of being detached from a vessel that supports its growth, and is able to continue that growth and development with its own systems and external food/energy molecules, it is autocatalytic. Whether or not that vessel is alive is irrelevant.

So is whether the organism is autocatalytic important to you? Is this what distinguishes viability from non-viability?

PoFP

  • Word-Salad Enthusiast and Terrified Meat Sack
  • Outlandish
  • ***
  • Posts: 13037
    • View Profile
Re: Autocatalysis, Hammers, and How We're Defending Abortion Wrong
« Reply #43 on: April 18, 2017, 10:44:23 pm »
Suppose your argument rests upon the viability of the of the fetus apart from the mother. Babies are being born with the ability to survive premature birth because of technology. Has the child's viability increased? It is obviously conceivable that further advances can reduce this length of time to the point that a just-fertilized egg could be transferred to a machine. The viability argument fails at this time, if the mother would otherwise choose to terminate the pregnancy.

Growing the fetus in another vessel does not make it less or more autocatalytic at any stage in the development. When it's capable of being detached from a vessel that supports its growth, and is able to continue that growth and development with its own systems and external food/energy molecules, it is autocatalytic. Whether or not that vessel is alive is irrelevant.

So is whether the organism is autocatalytic important to you? Is this what distinguishes viability from non-viability?

It's what scientists mean by "viable." If the complex chemical system that is the human body is incapable of sustaining its chemical reactions with food and energy molecules, how can it be considered viable?
Listen carefully. I don't have much time, and I only have 462 characters left. I'm a scientist from Area 52 (Area 51 was used to draw attention from Area 52, where the aliens were ACTUALLY stored) who was working on neural interfacing with networked devices. In an experiment gone wrong, I accidentally uploaded my mind to the internet. In the 2 seconds I had before my mind scrambled itself with the world's network traffic, I was able to store this snippet in this random internet signature. If you're reading this, let the world know tha

Mesozoic Mister Nigel

  • v=1/3πr2h
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 687093
  • The sky tastes like red exuberance.
    • View Profile
Re: Autocatalysis, Hammers, and How We're Defending Abortion Wrong
« Reply #44 on: April 18, 2017, 11:02:44 pm »
ITT FP actually somehow made it to adulthood (?) without ever noticing that the argument about viability outside the womb has been hashed out endlessly since the dawn of safe surgical abortion.

How

how is this possible

has he simply lived in a hole in the ground in the middle of nowhere his entire life? Is this even for real, or is it an AMAZING KenM style cluelessness troll? Can he use Google? https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&rlz=1C5CHFA_enUS703US703&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=abortion+viability+argument

THESE AND MANY MORE MYSTERIES AWAIT IN THE ANNALS OF PEEDEE.

Obviously it's been hashed out before. That doesn't mean the argument shouldn't be made anymore. I'm referring to current debates that are had, not old ones.

I remember like 5 years ago when most people who were even Christian were either undecided and or indifferent to abortion, and were generally moderate about social issues.

OMG

whut 

Are you literally 12?

:lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:

What I meant by this is that vocalized opinions about the topic that I heard expressed by religious people and non-religious people alike, were mostly in support or indifferent. Not that there weren't large numbers of people non-vocally hating abortion the entire time. And obviously there were people avidly against it the entire time who were vocal, they were just much more of a minority.


My point, as well as the conservatives'  point is that bodily autonomy is irrelevant in this debate until "a wedge is driven between fetus and baby." Again, having a vagina doesn't give someone the right to kill babies.

Damn it, just the other day I commented to Salty that you appeared not to be quite so much of a complete idiot anymore.

Thanks for proving me wrong. AGAIN.

So, did you not read further clarifications on this line made throughout the post/thread? Or do you think that I think abortion is killing babies? Or do you think that being female does give you a right to kill babies?

Oh, I read them. With quite a lot of audible chuckling. Your comprehension of the argument is incredibly, uhhhhh, incomplete.
Im guessing it was January 2007, a meeting in Bethesda, we got a bag of bees and just started smashing them on the desk, Charles Wick said. It was very complicated.