Pro-stem-cell-research yet pro-Christianity?

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

Every source I've come across in prior debates on this topic has claimed embryonic stem cells come exclusively from two sources; in-vitro fertilizations and cloned embryos. Do you have any source on ectopic pregnancies providing embryonic stem cells?

I’ve read Kat’s posts. Where are you getting any of that?

From this:

If we were paying women to purposefully get pregnant to abort the embryo in order to harvest the stem cells, then no way José, I am completely against that sort of behavior.

Harvesting stem cells from aborted or miscarried embryos is something I have no problem with, no matter how they came into being (with the exception of being farmed as above). At that point the cells are simply medical waste and are going to be disposed of. There is no reason not to put them to good use.

It seems to be suggesting that abortions can provide embryonic stem cells. (As far as I've heard from every other source, they can't.)

[Greater Catarapania]

Neither of whom would have attempted to implement pro-life policies to even the meagre extent Trump did.

You come across as a single-issue voter here.

Because I am. Again, nigh-on a million dead per year in our nation alone. I don't see any other issues of comparable importance.

But even if you are, does it not make you re-evaluate the position when the only "[pro-life]" candidate such voters could find who would be both able and willing to supposedly do something about it also happened to be a colossal hypocrite?

Not really. Just because the only guy willing to pander to me is a jackass doesn't mean I'm wrong. And recall that I was unwilling to support him, even after he won the primaries.

Does Stalin discredit socialism in general? I thought not.

From the perspective of an Evangelical, that statement is simply false. The rest of the first world is complacent about the moral mess they've gotten themselves into. We won't let America forget the problems of progressivism like Europe has.

Again, the single-issue vote comes through here. The aspect of "life" that causes people to be indignant at actual murders is the starting of the set of experiences and emotions that people typically refer to when they refer to someone's life.

Trouble is, that set of experiences and emotions doesn't start until well after birth. No experiences before age three or so are a part of my life in that sense. Unless you propose that we start treating infants with as much heartless pragmatism as we do non-human animals, your definition of life is a non-starter.

Of all the thresholds within pregnancy to pick, conception strikes me as frankly the most absurd.

1. As the only point (in the normal case - twinning and chimerism provide possible exceptions) at which one could say that a human organism comes into existence, conception is arguably the least arbitrary threshold to pick.

2. If you're going to campaign for an alternative threshold, why are you limiting yourself to within pregnancy? Why not go for eighteen months after birth, which is when humans first become self-aware? That's probably the third or fourth least-arbitrary point to pick.

2.5. The second least arbitrary is the formation of the primitive streak, after which twinning and chimerism no longer occur. This may explain why opposition to abortion is broader than opposition to ESCR, and is a fairly common threshold used in bioethics.

3. As you've pointed out, conception isn't a part of pregnancy. Pregnancy, strictly speaking, doesn't begin until implantation and the beginning of support for the fledgling human by the mother.

Of republicans who attended Church services weekly

Does this prove they're more religious than the rest? What if they like their own interpretation of the Bible more than that of the church?

Not necessarily, but it's the best correlate we have. Also, for the evangelical, there is no "the church" as a Bible-interpreting institution. When you do have a "the Church," it's generally "the Church" that wants to push for "conservative" interpretations, and the laymen who want to go in a more progressive direction.

It's only after he got the nomination that we began to begrudgingly accept him, and even then, many of us never warmed up to him. I, for one, was in denial - going so far as to write in Marco Rubio's name on the ballot in the general elections.

Nevertheless, it's the Republican Party that created this monster, and it's the Republican Party that's defending him now.

I agree, and I'm not going to forget. If the Democrats went pro-life and pro-family tomorrow, I'd switch parties.

Really? What do you mean "divergent pathways?" Sure, the embryo in a test tube will die if kept away from its natural habitat, but that's the case with most organisms. And if allowed to enter its natural habitat PRESTO!

A cloned embryo could be implanted into a uterus and become a fetus? I'm going to need a source on that one.

Um... Dolly the sheep springs to mind.

It winds up on the same developmental pathway it would have been on if it had been conceived there in the first place. Almost as if there's only one pathway that's being artificially interfered with, not a pair of divergent ones!

There's no such thing as "artificial." Everything artificial is natural, because it all has its roots in the natural world.

So steam engines, iphones, and nuclear bombs are all natural? They all would have occurred without human purposes being imposed upon arrangements of matter?

If this misconception has nothing to do with opposition to ESCR, how come you see popular shows perpetuating it?

Fun fact: South Park is satire, and exaggerates people's views to make fun of them.

And if the facts are being hidden, and one doesn't know that there are facts to hide?

Still their responsibility to check. Sitting back and making excuses for ignorance solves nothing.

But they're not making excuses. They don't know there's anything to be excused!

Who are you going to trust on the topic of pro-lifer principles? The pro-lifer telling you what being pro-life is about? Or the armchair psychologist engaging in Bulveristic bullshit?

"Trust"? On the Internet?

Lol. Point.

I establish doubt when there is reason for doubt. I do this when the other side of the debate acts too sure of people's motives, and I do this when people act entitled to have others take their word for something. I'm not the hypocrite here; I'm the one pointing out the reality that we're not sure either way.

Maybe looking for motives is a dead end, and one should examine arguments pro et contra instead? After all, there is such a thing as being right for the wrong reasons, and being wrong for the right reasons. Why not choose to be right for the right reasons - and do the legwork that entails, rather than hunting for motives?

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

Because I am. Again, nigh-on a million dead per year in our nation alone. I don't see any other issues of comparable importance.

I see. And do you think this is what support for the Republican Party is generally about or no?

Not really. Just because the only guy willing to pander to me is a jackass doesn't mean I'm wrong.

Not inherently, but it's still a pretty strong clue that the perspective of yours tends not to appeal to those who are both rational and honest at the same time. It should suggest it's more likely than not that you're playing right into the hands of those with a different agenda than your own by even continuing to hold and act on these views in the first place.

Does Stalin discredit socialism in general? I thought not.

He certainly disregards Karl Marx, who claimed capitalism would collapse itself, by taking the job of Lenin, who forced the issue. One could question whether or not he even counts as socialist, if the word's lack of an objective definition.

Trouble is, that set of experiences and emotions doesn't start until well after birth.

But sentience starts before it.

I invoke "experiences" more rhetorically than anything else. The point of invoking that is to show how a word's common definition; the one more often invoked in forming one's moral opinions and moral feelings (eg. indignation at murder) is contrasted with the scientific one. (Eg. The biological one that has nothing to do with whether or not one has "life" in the common sense that is taken away.)

The second least arbitrary is the formation of the primitive streak, after which twinning and chimerism no longer occur. This may explain why opposition to abortion is broader than opposition to ESCR, and is a fairly common threshold used in bioethics.

How do you reconcile this with the belief that the "ESCs come from aborted fetuses" misconception has nothing to do with opposition to ESCR?

With animal rights, we give them rights even though they're not human because they're sentient. By the fact that ovo-vegetarianism is a thing, I think it's safe to say sentience; associated with the third trimester; is the most meaningful threshold.

And usually a doctor won't even be willing to do one that late in the pregnancy unless the pregnancy itself carries significant risk of severe medical complications anyway. Every pregnancy is risky; some especially so.

Not necessarily, but it's the best correlate we have.

Is it? If you're going to rely on surveys, why not cut out the middleman and rely on a survey of religiosity in and of itself? Sure, it can be lied to, but without surveillance footage of those individuals walking into a church, those surveys can be lied to as well so the point is moot.



Does something look familiar about those religious states?

Also, for the evangelical, there is no "the church" as a Bible-interpreting institution. When you do have a "the Church," it's generally "the Church" that wants to push for "conservative" interpretations, and the laymen who want to go in a more progressive direction.

And yet, Church or no Church, religiosity pushes people in a more conservative direction than the lack thereof.

Um... Dolly the sheep springs to mind.

My bad, forgot about that case.

So why do you see no pressure to use cloned embryos for IVF purposes in that event?

So steam engines, iphones, and nuclear bombs are all natural? They all would have occurred without human purposes being imposed upon arrangements of matter?

You're conflating the former with the latter. The former is true. The latter is not.

When cavemen made fire, was that un-natural? Did it cease to be natural once anything past an arbitrary threshold in evolution touched it? What about some vulture that feasts upon a dead human being? Is its continued existence "un-natural" because it is affected by the presence of human beings? What about species that get to thrive because climate change killed its natural predators?

Everything artificial is natural, including humanity, and therefore, everything it does. It is even part of the course of nature that I'm typing this right now.

Fun fact: South Park is satire, and exaggerates people's views to make fun of them.

And yet, it sells like hotcakes, with a lot of people claiming to form their views from it.

But they're not making excuses. They don't know there's anything to be excused!

So if someone claimed they didn't know child pornography had to involve a real-life child to be created, is that excusable too? Where do you draw the line?

Maybe looking for motives is a dead end, and one should examine arguments pro et contra instead? After all, there is such a thing as being right for the wrong reasons, and being wrong for the right reasons. Why not choose to be right for the right reasons - and do the legwork that entails, rather than hunting for motives?

I would say looking for motives is unreliable, but "in and of itself" reasoning doesn't always tell us the exact causes and effects of certain policies. If you boil it down to its cause; even a "possible" instead of certain one; you can cut off other bad policies at the source.

[Holy Tedalonia]

I'm pretty sure it's not just exclusive to Christianity, to be anti embryonic stem cell research. And it comes down to how old the unborn is. I know some Christian's who are hardliners, while most are only concerned about fetus's coming from the mid-late phases of pregnancy.

[Page]

Because I am. Again, nigh-on a million dead per year in our nation alone. I don't see any other issues of comparable importance.

That is going to happen whether abortion is entirely legal or entirely illegal, but if abortion is entirely illegal, a lot more pregnant people will die too. In fact, if you're against abortion, I'd say voting for pro-choice candidates makes the most sense, because the pro-choice side tends to also support policies that would reduce abortion, such as:

- Implementing maternity and paternity leave and expanding welfare so that it is economically feasible for people to have children

- Universal health care so that giving birth doesn't result in a $10,000 hospital bill

- Wider availability of contraceptives to prevent unwanted pregnancy

- Comprehensive sex education in schools that educates students about safe sex, which also prevents unwanted pregnancy

It's strange that the most "pro-life" politicians are against these things. Indeed, if for some reason I wanted there to be as many abortions as possible, I would vote for people like Mike Pence, because that's how you get a skyrocketing abortion rate.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

Because I am. Again, nigh-on a million dead per year in our nation alone. I don't see any other issues of comparable importance.

That is going to happen whether abortion is entirely legal or entirely illegal, but if abortion is entirely illegal, a lot more pregnant people will die too. In fact, if you're against abortion, I'd say voting for pro-choice candidates makes the most sense, because the pro-choice side tends to also support policies that would reduce abortion, such as:

- Implementing maternity and paternity leave and expanding welfare so that it is economically feasible for people to have children

- Universal health care so that giving birth doesn't result in a $10,000 hospital bill

- Wider availability of contraceptives to prevent unwanted pregnancy

- Comprehensive sex education in schools that educates students about safe sex, which also prevents unwanted pregnancy

It's strange that the most "pro-life" politicians are against these things. Indeed, if for some reason I wanted there to be as many abortions as possible, I would vote for people like Mike Pence, because that's how you get a skyrocketing abortion rate.

To be fair, things that really are murder would be reduced by addressing the root causes of crime, yet you never see people who don't advocate addressing them characterized as "not really" being motivated by opposition to actual murders.

[Greater Catarapania]

Because I am. Again, nigh-on a million dead per year in our nation alone. I don't see any other issues of comparable importance.

I see. And do you think this is what support for the Republican Party is generally about or no?

Among Evangelicals, possibly. Not sure enough on demographics to say definitively.

Not really. Just because the only guy willing to pander to me is a jackass doesn't mean I'm wrong.

Not inherently, but it's still a pretty strong clue that the perspective of yours tends not to appeal to those who are both rational and honest at the same time.

That, or an entirely different movement (*cough* alt-right *cough-cough*) happened while we weren't looking, got a jackass into power on a fluke, and the jackass decided to throw us a bone to try and get our votes. In which case, any data on rationality/honesty mostly reflects on the entirely different movement, not pro-lifers.

I put it to you that this is precisely what happened in the case of Trump. An irrational/dishonest movement got an irrational/dishonest man into power on a fluke, he decided to throw us a bone to try and get our votes, and many of us decided the bone was better than being boned by the other option.

Does Stalin discredit socialism in general? I thought not.

He certainly disregards Karl Marx, who claimed capitalism would collapse itself, by taking the job of Lenin, who forced the issue. One could question whether or not he even counts as socialist, if the word's lack of an objective definition.

So how about Margaret Sanger? Do her views on race and eugenics discredit the pro-choice movement?

Trouble is, that set of experiences and emotions doesn't start until well after birth.

But sentience starts before it.

I invoke "experiences" more rhetorically than anything else.

That says a lot about your approach to this debate. Why do you take such a psychological approach? At every point, you seem to want to examine motives rather than arguments; demographic trends rather than facts.

The second least arbitrary is the formation of the primitive streak, after which twinning and chimerism no longer occur. This may explain why opposition to abortion is broader than opposition to ESCR, and is a fairly common threshold used in bioethics.

How do you reconcile this with the belief that the "ESCs come from aborted fetuses" misconception has nothing to do with opposition to ESCR?

Because aborted embryos are just as bad as aborted fetuses in the minds of most pro-lifers. Most of us, myself included, believe that life begins at conception, and oppose ESCR for that reason. If some of us believe that life begins at the formation of the primitive streak, then they would not necessarily oppose ESCR, while still opposing abortion more generally.

Fetuses, qua fetuses, never need to enter the equation.

I think it's safe to say sentience; associated with the third trimester; is the most meaningful threshold.

Sentience comes and goes. In deep sleep, when you aren't dreaming, your brain works, but you have no conscious experiences. By an occurrent definition of "sentience" (as opposed to the substantial definition that would lead to my position), you are not sentient for something along the lines of 10% of your adult life.

And usually a doctor won't even be willing to do one that late in the pregnancy unless the pregnancy itself carries significant risk of severe medical complications anyway. Every pregnancy is risky; some especially so.

I'm willing to allow a termination to save the life of the mother. I will not accept a lesser justification.

Not necessarily, but it's the best correlate we have.

Is it? If you're going to rely on surveys, why not cut out the middleman and rely on a survey of religiosity in and of itself? Sure, it can be lied to, but without surveillance footage of those individuals walking into a church, those surveys can be lied to as well so the point is moot.

Well, if we're going down that route, we have to ask how many Evangelicals lied about supporting Trump.

Also, for the evangelical, there is no "the church" as a Bible-interpreting institution. When you do have a "the Church," it's generally "the Church" that wants to push for "conservative" interpretations, and the laymen who want to go in a more progressive direction.

And yet, Church or no Church, religiosity pushes people in a more conservative direction than the lack thereof.

Recall that you were the one who asked "What if they like their own interpretation of the Bible more than that of the church?" Were you barking up the wrong tree there, or did you just decide that this was a good time to break out your tired "religion makes people conservative" talking point again?

Um... Dolly the sheep springs to mind.

My bad, forgot about that case.

So why do you see no pressure to use cloned embryos for IVF purposes in that event?

You see plenty of pressure against human cloning generally, mostly from the same people who oppose ESCR.

So steam engines, iphones, and nuclear bombs are all natural? They all would have occurred without human purposes being imposed upon arrangements of matter?

You're conflating the former with the latter. The former is true. The latter is not.

The latter is what I mean when I say "natural." The term has been used that way since Aristotle, and is still often used as such to this day. I'm not conflating anything, you're the one forcing meaning on a term that you know has a perfectly valid alternative meaning. I'm not going to say that you're dishonest in doing so, because you're probably not. I will say, however, that you're being uncharitable.

Fun fact: South Park is satire, and exaggerates people's views to make fun of them.

And yet, it sells like hotcakes, with a lot of people claiming to form their views from it.

And we come to yet another reason why choosing positions based on demographics rather than arguments is a bad idea: half of people have below-average intelligence, and not all of the other half used their intelligence to full effect when arriving at their views.

You can see why this discussion took the turn it did as quickly as it did. Most people recognize that demographic issues are a red herring when evaluating viewpoints.

But they're not making excuses. They don't know there's anything to be excused!

So if someone claimed they didn't know child pornography had to involve a real-life child to be created, is that excusable too?

If they're so innocent that they don't even know that child pornography is happening in the first place? Yes.

Remember, there's two parts to IVF - the part that lets people have kids, which we're okay with, and the part that involves discarding embryos, which we're not. The latter part is what isn't common knowledge.

Maybe looking for motives is a dead end, and one should examine arguments pro et contra instead? After all, there is such a thing as being right for the wrong reasons, and being wrong for the right reasons. Why not choose to be right for the right reasons - and do the legwork that entails, rather than hunting for motives?

I would say looking for motives is unreliable, but "in and of itself" reasoning doesn't always tell us the exact causes and effects of certain policies. If you boil it down to its cause; even a "possible" instead of certain one; you can cut off other bad policies at the source.

But how do you know which policies are even "bad" in the first place without the "in and of itself" reasoning? Wouldn't it be better to do "in and of itself" reasoning on all policies first, then look into cause-and-effect to decide how best to implement all that is good?

[Katganistan]

I reckon they exist: a general rule of thumb is even if there are two things that completely contradict each other (i.e. you can't love Y if you love X, and you can't love X if you love Y), there will always be someone who will sincerely love those two things simultaneously.

Why can't we love Star Wars and Star Trek equally? UwU

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

That, or an entirely different movement (*cough* alt-right *cough-cough*) happened while we weren't looking, got a jackass into power on a fluke, and the jackass decided to throw us a bone to try and get our votes. In which case, any data on rationality/honesty mostly reflects on the entirely different movement, not pro-lifers.

Funny you should mention that. Abortion bans are often made out to be about white extinction fears.

So how about Margaret Sanger? Do her views on race and eugenics discredit the pro-choice movement?

The burden of justification belongs to those who advocate the government actively intervene, not those who advocate it does not. Even if the case for legal protection of fetuses was first discredited by a flawed person, it remains discredited until a coherent case for it can be mustered.

Because aborted embryos are just as bad as aborted fetuses in the minds of most pro-lifers. Most of us, myself included, believe that life begins at conception, and oppose ESCR for that reason. If some of us believe that life begins at the formation of the primitive streak, then they would not necessarily oppose ESCR, while still opposing abortion more generally.

And yet, you still downplay the role of the "ESCs from fetuses" myth in opposition to ESCR.

Sentience comes and goes.

Which is why the interval from beginning to permanent end is the only one that counts.

I'm willing to allow a termination to save the life of the mother. I will not accept a lesser justification.

So you think you know better than her doctor?

Well, if we're going down that route, we have to ask how many Evangelicals lied about supporting Trump.

Of course we do. All bets are off. There's no turning back.

But in the meantime, I'm going by the correlation between states' religiosity and the way they vote.

Recall that you were the one who asked "What if they like their own interpretation of the Bible more than that of the church?" Were you barking up the wrong tree there, or did you just decide that this was a good time to break out your tired "religion makes people conservative" talking point again?

What are you talking about? Where's the contradiction? I pointed to religiosity as a whole, you were the one pointed to church-going in particular, so how is that a contradiction on my part?

The term has been used that way since Aristotle

Doesn't mean it isn't BS.

If they're so innocent that they don't even know that child pornography is happening in the first place? Yes.

Remember, there's two parts to IVF - the part that lets people have kids, which we're okay with, and the part that involves discarding embryos, which we're not. The latter part is what isn't common knowledge.

So knowledge's "commonality" is to be the excuse? How common is "common?" If the vast majority of people thought that, let's say, snorting cocaine would make invisible dragons do your bidding, is that excusable too?

But how do you know which policies are even "bad" in the first place without the "in and of itself" reasoning? Wouldn't it be better to do "in and of itself" reasoning on all policies first, then look into cause-and-effect to decide how best to implement all that is good?

If "in and of itself" reasoning were conclusive, that would be a strong case. But as noted above, it often isn't.

[Greater Catarapania]

That, or an entirely different movement (*cough* alt-right *cough-cough*) happened while we weren't looking, got a jackass into power on a fluke, and the jackass decided to throw us a bone to try and get our votes. In which case, any data on rationality/honesty mostly reflects on the entirely different movement, not pro-lifers.

Funny you should mention that. Abortion bans are often made out to be about white extinction fears.

See, if you were reading actual pro-lifer literature, you'd find the charge that abortion is racist because black fetuses are disproportionately targeted for the procedure. And therefore all abortions ought to be banned because, as someone once put it, "black lives matter."

It's not a logically valid argument, but it has a better statistical and moral foundation than the garbage you keep dredging up.

So how about Margaret Sanger? Do her views on race and eugenics discredit the pro-choice movement?

The burden of justification belongs to those who advocate the government actively intervene, not those who advocate it does not. Even if the case for legal protection of fetuses was first discredited by a flawed person, it remains discredited until a coherent case for it can be mustered.

It was never discredited. It was ignored.

And of course, I could make the same argument. Just because the people currently pushing for progress on this subject are flawed doesn't mean they aren't right about this one thing.

If racism doesn't discredit Planned Parenthood, why should it discredit the right-to-life movement?

Because aborted embryos are just as bad as aborted fetuses in the minds of most pro-lifers. Most of us, myself included, believe that life begins at conception, and oppose ESCR for that reason. If some of us believe that life begins at the formation of the primitive streak, then they would not necessarily oppose ESCR, while still opposing abortion more generally.

And yet, you still downplay the role of the "ESCs from fetuses" myth in opposition to ESCR.

What myth?! You've provided a political cartoon that doesn't mention fetuses and a satirical clip that does! Hardly evidence of a pervasive myth riddling the pro-life movement!

And in any case, if my repeated insistence on looking at things from first principles hadn't tipped you off, I would indeed suggest brushing misconceptions by both sides under the rug so we can focus on the facts.

Sentience comes and goes.

Which is why the interval from beginning to permanent end is the only one that counts.

The "temporary" end of sleep could easily be made seemingly permanent if you were to fall into a coma while you were asleep. Until/unless you woke up, nobody could be certain that the end wasn't "permanent."

We need something more steadfast than the current and contingent state of a thing in order to determine its moral worth.

I'm willing to allow a termination to save the life of the mother. I will not accept a lesser justification.

So you think you know better than her doctor?

If the doctor's the one declaring whether or not her life is at risk? No. That's a medical question, and I'm not qualified to answer those.

If the doctor suggests that she have an abortion when her life is not at stake? Yes. That's a moral question, and anyone with a functioning conscience has the right to engage in disputes on ethics.

Well, if we're going down that route, we have to ask how many Evangelicals lied about supporting Trump.

Of course we do. All bets are off. There's no turning back.

Then why not abandon statistics and go back to first principles?

But in the meantime, I'm going by the correlation between states' religiosity and the way they vote.

How do you think they measure religiosity?! By self-report of religious affiliation, church attendance, etc!

I thought we were throwing that nonsense out??

Recall that you were the one who asked "What if they like their own interpretation of the Bible more than that of the church?" Were you barking up the wrong tree there, or did you just decide that this was a good time to break out your tired "religion makes people conservative" talking point again?

What are you talking about? Where's the contradiction? I pointed to religiosity as a whole, you were the one pointed to church-going in particular, so how is that a contradiction on my part?

Again, how do you think that studies measure religiosity, if not by the self-reports of citizens?!

You're the one pushing for us not trusting those self-reports and/or not trusting that they correlate with religiosity, recall.

The term has been used that way since Aristotle

Doesn't mean it isn't BS.

So you think we shouldn't have a term for "thing that is the way it is because of what it is, rather than because of what humans wanted it to be."

Well, I find it useful to have a term to cover that set of entities and situations, I'm far from alone in that, and you know that I'm far from alone in that. As such, as I said before, your attempt to construe "natural" as though the only conceivable alternative were "supernatural," when you know that "artificial" is just as common an opposition in popular usage was uncharitable.

Many of the sources you've provided seem to be uncharitable to the pro-life movement as well.

If they're so innocent that they don't even know that child pornography is happening in the first place? Yes.

Remember, there's two parts to IVF - the part that lets people have kids, which we're okay with, and the part that involves discarding embryos, which we're not. The latter part is what isn't common knowledge.

So knowledge's "commonality" is to be the excuse? How common is "common?" If the vast majority of people thought that, let's say, snorting cocaine would make invisible dragons do your bidding, is that excusable too?

Depends on the morality of invisible dragon slavery.

If the dragons are supposed to be merely beasts of burden, and not sapient in their own right, then people not opposing the usage of cocaine because of the "invisible dragon" misconception would be morally non-culpable in doing so.

Knowledge is relevant to evaluating culpability.

But how do you know which policies are even "bad" in the first place without the "in and of itself" reasoning? Wouldn't it be better to do "in and of itself" reasoning on all policies first, then look into cause-and-effect to decide how best to implement all that is good?

If "in and of itself" reasoning were conclusive, that would be a strong case. But as noted above, it often isn't.

"In and of itself" reasoning is plenty conclusive. It's just that people with "progressive" views tend not to like the conclusions.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

See, if you were reading actual pro-lifer literature,

Again, no one is entitled to have others take their word for their motives. It's treating one's speculation as to someone else's motives like it's fact that crosses the line. I didn't cite that source to claim it to be a matter of proven fact. I cited it to make a point about one of your own claims.

you'd find the charge that abortion is racist because black fetuses are disproportionately targeted for the procedure. And therefore all abortions ought to be banned because, as someone once put it, "black lives matter."

When white women can't abort, they are not thrown AS severely into poverty as black women. A white woman might struggle for the next few years. A black woman might have no choice but to sell her body to the disproportionately white men who could afford prostitutes, who could then impregnate black women so that they bear a white man's seed instead of a black man's one. A black woman who can abort can therefore keep herself out of poverty long enough she can eventually afford to date; and bear the seed of; a black man.

If racism doesn't discredit Planned Parenthood, why should it discredit the right-to-life movement?

You cite one example. I cited tens of millions of them.

What myth?! You've provided a political cartoon that doesn't mention fetuses and a satirical clip that does! Hardly evidence of a pervasive myth riddling the pro-life movement!

Millions of people watched the satirical clip, and only a small fraction of them condemned the misconception it perpetuated. That seems to suggest it to be a pretty common misconception.

And in any case, if my repeated insistence on looking at things from first principles hadn't tipped you off, I would indeed suggest brushing misconceptions by both sides under the rug so we can focus on the facts.

The misconceptions are the closest thing we have to clues on motives.

The "temporary" end of sleep could easily be made seemingly permanent

That would violate the hippocratic oath.

Someone's life has started, and it will continue unless cut short. Unlike abortion, where someone was never sentient in the first place and for all intents and purposes it's equivalent to them never having been conceived.

If the doctor's the one declaring whether or not her life is at risk? No. That's a medical question, and I'm not qualified to answer those.

If the doctor suggests that she have an abortion when her life is not at stake? Yes. That's a moral question, and anyone with a functioning conscience has the right to engage in disputes on ethics.

Every pregnancy puts a life "at risk." The question is how severely at risk. As well, there's also risks of extremely severe and debilitating life-runing complications to the mother from pregnancies that are more likely than not to kill the fetus anyway.

Opinions on whether it's right or wrong are distinct, but not separate, from knowledge of pregnancy. Which, since neither of us are obstetricians, puts our opinions below theirs on the totem pole.

Then why not abandon statistics and go back to first principles?

Define "first principles."

How do you think they measure religiosity?! By self-report of religious affiliation, church attendance, etc!

I thought we were throwing that nonsense out??

Don't be ridiculous. I was going by Gallup's self-reporting of religiosity. Religiosity can be lied about. Church attendance can also be lied about. Since they cannot be relied upon to tell the truth either way, why not cut out the middleman, and poll them on religiosity itself?

You're the one pushing for us not trusting those self-reports and/or not trusting that they correlate with religiosity, recall.

No, I don't trust self-reporting either way, but it's better to trust self-reporting on religiosity than conflate it with church attendance that can be lied about just as easily.

Next time, if you're not sure what I'm saying, don't pretend you get it. Ask.

Depends on the morality of invisible dragon slavery.

You're missing the point. "Common" knowledge can be incorrect, let alone inadequate, and it's everyone's responsibility to get the facts regardless of whether or not anyone else is doing the same.

When we lower the bar to "everyone else is ignorant so it's okay if I am too," that's when you get charlatans like Trump.

[Greater Catarapania]

See, if you were reading actual pro-lifer literature,

Again, no one is entitled to have others take their word for their motives. It's treating one's speculation as to someone else's motives like it's fact that crosses the line. I didn't cite that source to claim it to be a matter of proven fact. I cited it to make a point about one of your own claims.

If you want to know what someone believes, engaging in armchair psychoanalysis on the basis of skin color and voting preferences isn't going to work as well as taking the time to actually listen to them.

You want to understand why pro-lifers behave the way they do? Listen to them, not their enemies.

You want to understand why abortion advocates behave the way they do? Listen to them, not their enemies.

It's a general principle of charity in discourse, one that I believe we need to recover if debate on any subject is to serve any purpose. The reason for a viewpoint is that given by its adherents, not that assigned by its detractors.

you'd find the charge that abortion is racist because black fetuses are disproportionately targeted for the procedure. And therefore all abortions ought to be banned because, as someone once put it, "black lives matter."

When white women can't abort, they are not thrown AS severely into poverty as black women. A white woman might struggle for the next few years. A black woman might have no choice but to sell her body to the disproportionately white men who could afford prostitutes, who could then impregnate black women so that they bear a white man's seed instead of a black man's one. A black woman who can abort can therefore keep herself out of poverty long enough she can eventually afford to date; and bear the seed of; a black man.

One wonders where the child's father is in all of this.

If racism doesn't discredit Planned Parenthood, why should it discredit the right-to-life movement?

You cite one example. I cited tens of millions of them.

Which you then discredited on the basis of not trusting any of them.

What myth?! You've provided a political cartoon that doesn't mention fetuses and a satirical clip that does! Hardly evidence of a pervasive myth riddling the pro-life movement!

Millions of people watched the satirical clip, and only a small fraction of them condemned the misconception it perpetuated.

Because it was FUNNY, not because they BELIEVED IT!!

How often do you condemn South Park when they perpetuate misconceptions about Conservative points of view?

And in any case, if my repeated insistence on looking at things from first principles hadn't tipped you off, I would indeed suggest brushing misconceptions by both sides under the rug so we can focus on the facts.

The misconceptions are the closest thing we have to clues on motives.

Motives are irrelevant to truth.

The "temporary" end of sleep could easily be made seemingly permanent

That would violate the hippocratic oath.

As does abortion, at least according to Hippocrates' original version.

Someone's life has started, and it will continue unless cut short. Unlike abortion, where someone was never sentient in the first place and for all intents and purposes it's equivalent to them never having been conceived.

Why is sentience even all that valuable? Even pigs have it. Have you ever eaten bacon?

If the doctor's the one declaring whether or not her life is at risk? No. That's a medical question, and I'm not qualified to answer those.

If the doctor suggests that she have an abortion when her life is not at stake? Yes. That's a moral question, and anyone with a functioning conscience has the right to engage in disputes on ethics.

Every pregnancy puts a life "at risk." The question is how severely at risk.

Then let's say "as severely at risk as the fetus' would be if the abortion were performed."

As well, there's also risks of extremely severe and debilitating life-runing complications to the mother from pregnancies that are more likely than not to kill the fetus anyway.

And those are the kinds that "life of the mother" exceptions have in mind.

Opinions on whether it's right or wrong are distinct, but not separate, from knowledge of pregnancy. Which, since neither of us are obstetricians, puts our opinions below theirs on the totem pole.

I know enough of the facts about human development to make an informed judgement on the moral value of a human life.

Then why not abandon statistics and go back to first principles?

Define "first principles."

It's my preferred way of speaking about what you called "in and of itself inquiry."

How do you think they measure religiosity?! By self-report of religious affiliation, church attendance, etc!

I thought we were throwing that nonsense out??

Don't be ridiculous. I was going by Gallup's self-reporting of religiosity. Religiosity can be lied about. Church attendance can also be lied about. Since they cannot be relied upon to tell the truth either way, why not cut out the middleman, and poll them on religiosity itself?

If we can't rely on them to tell the truth, we can't rely on their reports to make judgements. You can't have it both ways.

You're the one pushing for us not trusting those self-reports and/or not trusting that they correlate with religiosity, recall.

No, I don't trust self-reporting either way, but it's better to trust self-reporting on religiosity than conflate it with church attendance that can be lied about just as easily.

Church attendance means a willingness to devote time to religion, and is thus a good correlate for religiosity. If you take that "actions speak louder than words" thing seriously, self-report of church attendance is arguably a better correlate than the self-report of religiosity itself.

Depends on the morality of invisible dragon slavery.

You're missing the point. "Common" knowledge can be incorrect, let alone inadequate, and it's everyone's responsibility to get the facts regardless of whether or not anyone else is doing the same.

That would be the ideal, yes. But not everybody has the time, or the intelligence, for that.

----------------

You don't seem to be getting my point about motives, so here's a deal.

If you can prove that all of this malarkey about not trusting self-reports isn't just part of some elaborate rationalization so you can avoid even partially exonerating Evangelicals for supporting Trump, I'll start treating your bullshit about "motives" like it deserves serious discussion.

I will be prosecutor, judge, and jury. Me, a man you've never met in person, and probably never will. You'll never be able to look your accuser in the face, you'll never see their body language, you'll hear no hint of hardness or softness in their tone. You'll have no way of knowing whether or not your arguments are making any progress, save for a set of lights on a screen. The only thing you can be sure of? That I won't trust a word you say.

Do we have a deal?

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

If you want to know what someone believes, engaging in armchair psychoanalysis on the basis of skin color and voting preferences isn't going to work as well as taking the time to actually listen to them.

You want to understand why pro-lifers behave the way they do? Listen to them, not their enemies.

You want to understand why abortion advocates behave the way they do? Listen to them, not their enemies.

But each side disputes the other's claimed motives all the time. You can't believe both. It's a self-refuting idea.

It's a general principle of charity in discourse, one that I believe we need to recover if debate on any subject is to serve any purpose.

Here's the trouble with "charity in discourse." If you genuinely adhere to it, people will not care. They will jump to conclusions about your motives anyway, and all you're accomplishing by refusing to even speculate as to theirs is to yield the competitive advantage to them.

I am not just speaking abstractly. Just look at any discussion on evolutionary psychology or scantily-clad attire or niceguyism. As soon as someone cites "eggs are expensive, sperm are cheap" they're insinuated to be speaking from personal experience. If they condemn scantily-clad attire in schools, they're made out to be pedophiles. If they express concerns about girls dating jerks and causing other males to imitate said jerks' behaviour to get laid, they're made out to be "just jealous." And if you dare give them a taste of their own medicine, they can get you on going back on your principles, causing more people to embrace the anti-evopsych, pro-scantily-clad-attire, none-of-your-business-who-she-dates worldview. "Charity in discourse" was a mistake.

One wonders where the child's father is in all of this.

Perhaps he didn't expect her to keep the baby. Even if abortion were illegal, perhaps he thought when he impregnated her that she'd get a back-alley one. Or give the baby up for adoption. Perhaps she knew that he had so little money himself that going after him for child support bills wouldn't drag them out of poverty, just prevent him from going to college and making something of himself.

Which you then discredited on the basis of not trusting any of them.

More so on the basis of disproportionately voting for such a racist lunatic for President. It lends more credibility to the "it was always about white birthrates" interpretation of anti-abortion restrictions, and less to the "philosophy of life" narrative that tends to correlate with condemnation of adultery.

Because it was FUNNY, not because they BELIEVED IT!!

How often do you condemn South Park when they perpetuate misconceptions about Conservative points of view?

Name one.

Also, in case you do have any in mind, bear in mind I don't think "interpretation of what someone is saying" or "assumptions about their motives" are really comparable to outright ignorance on clear-cut matters of medical fact.

As does abortion, at least according to Hippocrates' original version.

Not sure about the full context of the original version, but I would speculate the ancients got the impression fetuses were sentient. It's an evolutionarily-advantageous misconception to have. Those who had it would outbreed those who didn't for obvious reasons.

Why is sentience even all that valuable? Even pigs have it. Have you ever eaten bacon?

Certainly. And I will likely continue to do so. But note that I'm not going to kill pigs just for shits and giggles. There is a moral restraint on it, even if it is not to the same level as a person's life, as a person has more to live for than a pig.

Then let's say "as severely at risk as the fetus' would be if the abortion were performed."

That's preposterous. You want doctors to recklessly endanger women's lives to save the lives of fetuses who might not survive an especially dangerous pregnancy anyway?

This is why we leave these decisions to qualified doctors.

I know enough of the facts about human development to make an informed judgement on the moral value of a human life.

But evidently, not enough to weigh the tradeoff between the life of the fetus and the life of the mother.

This is why we leave these decisions to qualified doctors.

It's my preferred way of speaking about what you called "in and of itself inquiry."

Very well, then.

So my point is that opinions on morality and assumptions about the context of morality are not entirely separate. The trolley problem, for instance, is a famous thought experiment that has been thrown into chaos by a variety of factors involved. If a moral opinion correlates with a certain kind of decision, it forces re-evaluation of that opinion in the first place.

If we can't rely on them to tell the truth, we can't rely on their reports to make judgements.

Sure as hell can. We can't rely on states like Vermont to tell the truth about not lending significance to religion. We can already rule out interpretations of Christianity that include "do not bear false witness unto thy neighbour."

Church attendance means a willingness to devote time to religion

There's an infinite number of other ways to "devote time" to something. To single out church is arbitrary.

You don't seem to be getting my point about motives, so here's a deal.

If you can prove that all of this malarkey about not trusting self-reports isn't just part of some elaborate rationalization so you can avoid even partially exonerating Evangelicals for supporting Trump, I'll start treating your bullshit about "motives" like it deserves serious discussion.

I will be prosecutor, judge, and jury. Me, a man you've never met in person, and probably never will. You'll never be able to look your accuser in the face, you'll never see their body language, you'll hear no hint of hardness or softness in their tone. You'll have no way of knowing whether or not your arguments are making any progress, save for a set of lights on a screen. The only thing you can be sure of? That I won't trust a word you say.

Do we have a deal?

I already consented to this deal when I participated in the Internet. And so did you.

[Zohiania]

Embryonic Stem Cells aren't even effective or near as useful as adult stem cells when it comes to life saving research, and there is literally zero reason to use embryonic stem cells over adult stem cells in research.