This board should have a FAQ section, and one of the FAQs should cover requests to prove things with the scientific method.

You've yet to apply logic. Your premise isn't just flawed it's silly. And you've done nothing to support it.

I already told you why your linear method is flawed, it seems you weren't able to comprehend the point.

I'm not desperate to defend abortion but you do seem desperate to attack it.

As someone else pointed out we can put 0% odds on something without a brain being sentient. But you'd have that at 15%.

It's just silliness

This argument is similar to trying to assign a probability that someone should be treated as an adult.

We put a newborn babe at 0% and a 30 year old at 100% and take a linear analysis.

It's an absurd methodology for this type of question

Dilettante said:

---

This board should have a FAQ section, and one of the FAQs should cover requests to prove things with the scientific method.

---

The first thing on that FAQ should be that things do not get proven by the scientific method. Things only get disproven by the scientific method.

Aggrad08 said:

---

You've yet to apply logic. Your premise isn't just flawed it's silly. And you've done nothing to support it.

I already told you why your linear method is flawed, it seems you weren't able to comprehend the point.

I'm not desperate to defend abortion but you do seem desperate to attack it.

As someone else pointed out we can put 0% odds on something without a brain being sentient. But you'd have that at 15%.

It's just silliness

---

Just because you "told" me why linear is flawed does not mean you have any logical basis for saying so. I can make a good logical case for it. All you can do is say "nope".

Sorry that it you find it inconvenient for your argument. Maybe try to apply logic next time.

Aggrad08 said:

---

This argument is similar to trying to assign a probability that someone should be treated as an adult.

We put a newborn babe at 0% and a 30 year old at 100% and take a linear analysis.

It's an absurd methodology for this type of question

---

There isn't much debate on when a person should be treated as an adult. Most people are perfectly fine with 18 for most rights and 21 for drinking. If there was a raging debate over it where half of people wanted to drink at 18 and half at 21, then I'd have no problem having some sort of a linear ramp between the two. That's fine.

schmendeler said:

---

Pretty sure something that doesn't have a brain isn't "sentient". Although some of the posts on this thread might convince me otherwise.

---

The brain starts developing at 5 weeks. Does this mean you will go on record being against abortion after that point?

Quote:

---

I can make a good logical case for it. All you can do is say "nope".

---

They are saying it isn't logical so I'd argue that you haven't done as good a job of presenting as good logical case as you think you have.

diehard03 said:

---

Quote:

---

I can make a good logical case for it. All you can do is say "nope".

---

They are saying it isn't logical so I'd argue that you haven't done as good a job of presenting as good logical case as you think you have.

---

Some people would say that no matter how much logic was thrown at them. Just look at flat earthers for a good example.

aTmAg said:

---

schmendeler said:

---

Pretty sure something that doesn't have a brain isn't "sentient". Although some of the posts on this thread might convince me otherwise.

---

The brain starts developing at 5 weeks. Does this mean you will go on record being against abortion after that point?

---

starts developing /= has a brain unless you consider all things with some neural connections "sentient"

aTmAg said:

---

Sorry that it you find it inconvenient for your argument. Maybe try to apply logic next time.

---

This linear increase in probability claim is one of the worst claims I've ever seen on this website.

It has no relation to the actual process you're attempting to describe. Everyone in this thread is now dumber for having heard it.

schmendeler said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

schmendeler said:

---

Pretty sure something that doesn't have a brain isn't "sentient". Although some of the posts on this thread might convince me otherwise.

---

The brain starts developing at 5 weeks. Does this mean you will go on record being against abortion after that point?

---

starts developing /= has a brain unless you consider all things with some neural connections "sentient"

---

Yet neither you nor I have any idea at what point after that it becomes "sentient" enough. So why not ban it after that point just in case? You in or out?

I feel pretty good about keeping it at the first trimester.

Dilettante said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Sorry that it you find it inconvenient for your argument. Maybe try to apply logic next time.

---

This linear increase in probability claim is one of the worst claims I've ever seen on this website.

It has no relation to the actual process you're attempting to describe. Everyone in this thread is now dumber for having heard it.

---

It must not be that bad, since it's kicking your ass as evident by the pathetic nature of this retort.

schmendeler said:

---

I feel pretty good about keeping it at the first trimester.

---

Why? What is magic about the first trimester?

Quote:

---

Some people would say that no matter how much logic was thrown at them. Just look at flat earthers for a good example.

---

that would be a poor argument though.

You really haven't established the reason for your logic or how it's logical. They "nope", you say "yep" and it dies there.

So on the "when does life begin?" question.... Hard core pro-lifers insist that life begins at conception. So, to them, the probability is 0% up until the moment prior to conception and then suddenly goes to 100% at conception. In their view, 100% of the area under the curve between conception and birth is "alive". Meanwhile, the hardest core pro-choicers argue that the probability is 0% right up until birth at which point it goes to 100%. In their view, 100% of the area is non-alive. Both sides can argue all day, but there is no way any Earthly human knows what that line really is.

So the sensible compromise between the two sides would be a curve where the area under the curve is 50/50. Obviously, it would be 0% at conception and 100% at birth.

The two extremes possibilities of that are:
1) The one that allows abortion to go as long as possible... so probability stays at 0% and then spikes up to 100% at 4.5 months.
2) The one that bans abortion the entire time... probability is basically 50% between conception and birth.

Both are laughably stupid after a few seconds of thought as they both have huge instantaneous spikes up. As if time X there is no chance of life, and then the very next arbitrary nanosecond the chance of life spikes by 50% or 100%. Any curve that makes a lick of logical sense would be gradual.

So there are an infinite number of S-curves between the two. (Consider the graph a unit square for a moment to make it easier to visualize) Those with inflection point slope above 1 (bias towards pro-abortion side as it allows abortion longer) and inflection point slope below 1 (bias towards anti-abortion side as it bans abortion earlier). Guess what is in the middle? A slope of 1. Guess what that is? A line from 0% to 100%.

So in short, the straight line is the middle compromise between the pro-abortion side and anti-abortion side on the most important question in respect to abortion that nobody has the real answer to: When does life begin?



And YET.. even if you chose that curve (and almost any S curve other than the #1 above) abortion should be banned early as hell when considering what we consider acceptable risk in virtually every other aspect of life. That is how little sense the pro-abortion argument is. You have to basically turn off your brain to buy into that stuff.

aTmAg said:

---

There isn't much debate on when a person should be treated as an adult. Most people are perfectly fine with 18 for most rights and 21 for drinking. If there was a raging debate over it where half of people wanted to drink at 18 and half at 21, then I'd have no problem having some sort of a linear ramp between the two. That's fine.

---

There is considerable debate on this issue. In fact, the very reality that we have so many different ages shows how inconsistent we are and how much a matter of debate it is. 17 for consent, 17 sometimes for law, 18 for voting and tobacco and war, 21 for weed and booze, 25 for insurance...

This issue is a perfect example. Its fundamentally subjective, science cannot prove or disprove anyone opinion. And most people agree on extremes away from these dates, say 10 and 30 or whatever.

You aren't putting your linear ramp at the second trimester, if you did it would be more analogous. You are starting at extremes, and so your linear ramp becomes an impressively unintelligent methodology.

So in your example there is a raging debate between 17-21 and you want to start at 0 and go to 30

Aggrad08 said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

There isn't much debate on when a person should be treated as an adult. Most people are perfectly fine with 18 for most rights and 21 for drinking. If there was a raging debate over it where half of people wanted to drink at 18 and half at 21, then I'd have no problem having some sort of a linear ramp between the two. That's fine.

---

There is considerable debate on this issue. In fact, the very reality that we have so many different ages shows how inconsistent we are and how much a matter of debate it is. 17 for consent, 17 sometimes for law, 18 for voting and tobacco and war, 21 for weed and booze, 25 for insurance...

This issue is a perfect example. Its fundamentally subjective, science cannot prove or disprove anyone opinion. And most people agree on extremes away from these dates, say 10 and 30 or whatever.

---

You are exaggerating the "debate". If that topic is on anybody's priority list at all, it's probably at #100 or so. Right behind what should be the national mushroom.

Luckily, drinking age is not a matter of life and death. If a state picks too late of a date, you won't have millions die a miserable death.

Quote:

---

You aren't putting your linear ramp at the second trimester, if you did it would be more analogous. You are starting at extremes, and so your linear ramp becomes an impressively unintelligent methodology.

So in your example there is a raging debate between 17-21 and you want to start at 0 and go to 30

---

Oh, don't get me wrong. I think the REAL ramp goes from 0 at conception to 100% at 21 weeks since that is the earliest a baby has been born and survived. I was giving your side the benefit of the doubt by stretching it out to 9 months, as that would make the probability lower early on. Yet even stretching out the probability makes it STILL high enough to be gross to allow abortion after a few weeks. If we pushed the top of the ramp back to 21 weeks, then it would be even worse for your argument.

Quote:

---

So on the "when does life begin?" question.... Hard core pro-lifers insist that life begins at conception. So, to them, the probability is 0% up until the moment prior to conception and then suddenly goes to 100% at conception. In their view, 100% of the area under the curve between conception and birth is "alive". Meanwhile, the hardest core pro-choicers argue that the probability is 0% right up until birth at which point it goes to 100%. In their view, 100% of the area is non-alive. Both sides can argue all day, but there is no way any Earthly human knows what that line really is.

So the sensible compromise between the two sides would be a curve where the area under the curve is 50/50. Obviously, it would be 0% at conception and 100% at birth.

The two extremes possibilities of that are:
1) The one that allows abortion to go as long as possible... so probability stays at 0% and then spikes up to 100% at 4.5 months.
2) The one that bans abortion the entire time... probability is basically 50% between conception and birth.

Both are laughably stupid after a few seconds of thought as they both have huge instantaneous spikes up. As if time X there is no chance of life, and then the very next arbitrary nanosecond the chance of life spikes by 50% or 100%. Any curve that makes a lick of logical sense would be gradual.

So there are an infinite number of S-curves between the two. (Consider the graph a unit square for a moment to make it easier to visualize) Those with inflection point slope above 1 (bias towards pro-abortion side as it allows abortion longer) and inflection point slope below 1 (bias towards anti-abortion side as it bans abortion earlier). Guess what is in the middle? A slope of 1. Guess what that is? A line from 0% to 100%.

So in short, the straight line is the middle compromise between the pro-abortion side and anti-abortion side on the most important question in respect to abortion that nobody has the real answer to: When does life begin?



And YET.. even if you chose that curve (and almost any S curve other than the #1 above) abortion should be banned early as hell when considering what we consider acceptable risk in virtually every other aspect of life. That is how little sense the pro-abortion argument is. You have to basically turn off your brain to buy into that stuff.

---

I'm trying to help you, I really am...but if the more you explain it, the more confusing it becomes...then you probably need to tighten it up more.

aTmAg said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

You are exaggerating the "debate". If that topic is on anybody's priority list at all, it's probably at #100 or so. Right behind what should be the national mushroom.

Luckily, drinking age is not a matter of life and death. If a state picks too late of a date, you won't have millions die a miserable death.

---

---

---

Priorities don't make a thing a debate. Chocolate vs vanilla is a debate also, we just don't care. The example was to show the stupidity of your premise, not to put forth an issue that matters. In fact, I deliberately chose one that doesn't carry much baggage so you wouldn't get distracted by that.

Quote:

---

Oh, don't get me wrong. I think the REAL ramp goes from 0 at conception to 100% at 21 weeks since that is the earliest a baby has been born and survived.

---

This actually shows the stupidity of your premise. Of course you don't consider it a linear ramp from 0 to 9 months. Similarly, someone else would start their ramp at 12 weeks and go to 7 months.

Quote:

---

I was giving your side the benefit of the doubt by stretching it out to 9 months

---

You weren't though. You are so shortsighted that you didn't even realize what you thought was "the benefit of the doubt" is actually substantially far away from what your opponent's beliefs are. Like I said, someone could exclude the first x weeks just like you excluded 21weeks to 9 months.

Quote:

---

as that would make the probability lower early on. Yet even stretching out the probability makes it STILL high enough to be gross to allow abortion after a few weeks. If we pushed the top of the ramp back to 21 weeks, then it would be even worse for your argument.

---

Just as if we started the ramp at 12 weeks your argument would suffer. See how a fundamentally arbitrary starting point and a linear analysis leads to remarkably different results based on the unfounded, unfalsifiable initial premises? That's what makes your argument utterly moronic.

Or maybe you should get a little more squared away on your math skills.

Aggrad08 said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

You are exaggerating the "debate". If that topic is on anybody's priority list at all, it's probably at #100 or so. Right behind what should be the national mushroom.

Luckily, drinking age is not a matter of life and death. If a state picks too late of a date, you won't have millions die a miserable death.

---

---

---

Priorities don't make a thing a debate. Chocolate vs vanilla is a debate also, we just don't care. The example was to show the stupidity of your premise, not to put forth an issue that matters. In fact, I deliberately chose one that doesn't carry much baggage so you wouldn't get distracted by that.

---

Priorities effect policy. Which is what we are debating. I can say "sure make a ramp for 17-21 years". I don't care. So your "gotcha" attempt is pathetically idiotic.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Oh, don't get me wrong. I think the REAL ramp goes from 0 at conception to 100% at 21 weeks since that is the earliest a baby has been born and survived.

---

This actually shows the stupidity of your premise. Of course you don't consider it a linear ramp from 0 to 9 months. Similarly, someone else would start their ramp at 12 weeks and go to 7 months.

---

Except I have a sound logical basis for where I put my ramp. A ramp from 12 weeks to 7 months has none ("I just want to excuse abortion" is not one, BTW).

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

I was giving your side the benefit of the doubt by stretching it out to 9 months

---

You weren't though. You are so shortsighted that you didn't even realize what you thought was "the benefit of the doubt" is actually substantially far away from what your opponent's beliefs are. Like I said, someone could exclude the first x weeks just like you excluded 21weeks to 9 months.

---

Except I was though. By making the ramp stretch out, I was moving the probability lower. And I've already addressed the idiotic exclusion of the first x weeks. The reason I can logically exclude 21 weeks+ is becuase a baby has been born and continues to survive at that point. So clearly life HAS to exist at that point. It's really not rocket science. (for most people)

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

as that would make the probability lower early on. Yet even stretching out the probability makes it STILL high enough to be gross to allow abortion after a few weeks. If we pushed the top of the ramp back to 21 weeks, then it would be even worse for your argument.

---

Just as if we started the ramp at 12 weeks your argument would suffer. See how a fundamentally arbitrary starting point and a linear analysis leads to remarkably different results based on the unfounded, unfalsifiable initial premises? That's what makes your argument utterly moronic.

---

Again, you have no sound logical basis to start at 12 weeks, where I DO have a sound basis to exclude after 21 weeks. And even IF I were to concede to go back to 9 months, then your argument is still screwed as I have already shown before.


I'll let you stew on that for a while. I got work to do.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Priorities effect policy. Which is what we are debating. I can say "sure make a ramp for 17-21 years". I don't care. So your "gotcha" attempt is pathetically idiotic.

---

---

It's a little sad that the point is going over your head. You are making a ramp for 17-21 and starting at 0 and 30.

Quote:

---

Except I have a sound logical basis for where I put my ramp. A ramp from 12 weeks to 7 months has none ("I just want to excuse abortion" is not one, BTW).

---

No you don't. It's arbitrary. Science has no say on the matter. You simply selected two points at the extreme and decided a linear relationship between them. It's so stupid I feel bad for you. It's literally the same as starting between 0 and 30 for age of adulthood

Quote:

---

Except I was though. By making the ramp stretch out, I was moving the probability lower.

---

Except you were including part of the ramp on a linear basis that others would exclude. Just as including 0 on a ramp of adulthood puts fort stupid results.

Quote:

---

And I've already addressed the idiotic exclusion of the first x weeks. The reason I can logically exclude 21 weeks+ is becuase a baby has been born and continues to survive at that point. So clearly life HAS to exist at that point. It's really not rocket science. (for most people)

---

Life exists the whole time. This is not and will never be a debate about life existing.

Quote:

---

Again, you have no sound logical basis to start at 12 weeks, where I DO have a sound basis to exclude after 21 weeks.

---

See you don't know that because you are bad at this. I could pick any number of dates and justify them.

First neural cells 5 weeks
first synapses 8 weeks
brain actually takes shape 10 weeks
Brainstem complete end of the second trimester
Cerebral cortex formed third trimester

Each of this is just as sound a point as any you put forth. They are all subjective.

Quote:

---

And even IF I were to concede to go back to 9 months, then your argument is still screwed as I have already shown before.

---

No you didn't. You still don't understand that everything you put forth is subjective.

Quote:

---

Or maybe you should get a little more squared away on your math skills.

---

Alright. Continue your logic dunking you're demonstrating here.

I'm glad I'm not an engineer. Can you imagine working with this guy?

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Except I have a sound logical basis for where I put my ramp. A ramp from 12 weeks to 7 months has none ("I just want to excuse abortion" is not one, BTW).

---

No you don't. It's arbitrary. Science has no say on the matter. You simply selected two points at the extreme and decided a linear relationship between them. It's so stupid I feel bad for you. It's literally the same as starting between 0 and 30 for age of adulthood

---

You literally cannot comprehend the difference between randomly picking age 30 and picking an actual time frame at which a baby has been born and survived? And you call me stupid?

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Except I was though. By making the ramp stretch out, I was moving the probability lower.

---

Except you were including part of the ramp on a linear basis that others would exclude. Just as including 0 on a ramp of adulthood puts fort stupid results.

---

Yeah, it's like me offering to race you, giving you a 40%, head start, and still beating you. Either way you cut it, 0-9 months or 0-21 weeks probability is too high. Sorry you don't like it.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

And I've already addressed the idiotic exclusion of the first x weeks. The reason I can logically exclude 21 weeks+ is becuase a baby has been born and continues to survive at that point. So clearly life HAS to exist at that point. It's really not rocket science. (for most people)

---

Life exists the whole time. This is not and will never be a debate about life existing.

---

Whatever word you adopt. If you prefer "personhood" or whatever random word you use at the moment then use that. Whatever state you call it where one should not get their limbs ripped off and sucked out with a vacuum.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Again, you have no sound logical basis to start at 12 weeks, where I DO have a sound basis to exclude after 21 weeks.

---

See you don't know that because you are bad at this. I could pick any number of dates and justify them.

First neural cells 5 weeks
first synapses 8 weeks
brain actually takes shape 10 weeks
Brainstem complete end of the second trimester
Cerebral cortex formed third trimester


Each of this is just as sound a point as any you put forth. They are all subjective.

---

No they are not. My point has been PROVEN by actual birth. Every single one of yours is nothing but conjecture.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

And even IF I were to concede to go back to 9 months, then your argument is still screwed as I have already shown before.

---

No you didn't. You still don't understand that everything you put forth is subjective.

---

It is not subjective that a successful birth has occurred at 21 weeks. That is objective fact. The rest is simple logic. Which clearly is over your head.

aTmAg said:

---

You literally cannot comprehend the difference between randomly picking age 30 and picking an actual time frame at which a baby has been born and survived? And you call me stupid?

---

You are so incapable of complex thought that you don't realize that viability whether demonstrated or as a concept, is also a subjective line to draw.

Quote:

---

Yeah, it's like me offering to race you, giving you a 40%, head start, and still beating you. Either way you cut it, 0-9 months or 0-21 weeks probability is too high. Sorry you don't like it.

---

No that's remarkably stupid. That's like starting at 0 for the age of adulthood. There are areas others would exclude for sound reasons, you are so deluded that you think it's a favor.

Quote:

---

Whatever word you adopt. If you prefer "personhood" or whatever random word you use at the moment then use that. Whatever state you call it where one should not get their limbs ripped off and sucked out with a vacuum.

---

Well since words have meaning it seems relevant which ones we choose. And if you think but a little, you realize that the very concept, any lines we draw here are subjective.

Quote:

---

No they are not. My point has been PROVEN by actual birth. Every single one of yours is nothing but conjecture.

---

Um no. Every single instance I put forth is a scientific fact. Just as it's a scientific fact that a baby might be viable around 21 weeks. If viability is your standard that instance makes sense to choose. But the standard of viability is itself subjective. If Brain development is your standard you will choose different dates.

Quote:

---

.It is not subjective that a successful birth has occurred at 21 weeks. That is objective fact. The rest is simple logic. Which clearly is over your head.

---

This is an example of the dunning Krugar effect. You have a confidence that stems from impressive ignorance. You are getting lapped and think you are leading the race.

It's an objective fact that the milestones of fetal development occur when I said they occur. Whether we decide to use those milestones is our own subjective opinion.

I don't mind using the 21-week milestone. I also think it's silly to call anything without a brain a person, so I reject using conception as a starting point. If you wanted to start at 10 weeks when there is actually a brain that makes a bit more sense. Your linear analysis at that point is still stupid, but at least it leads to less absurd results.

What if you believe that at conception that a human soul is formed?

Obviously that has nothing to do with science but is at the heart of this debate.

If you believe, like I do, in a supernatural Creator God that is possible.

If you do not, you depend on science completely.

That really is all this is about.

How many souls exist at each point in this hypothetical? I don't think the idea of discrete souls actually matches up well with reality. It could still be the case but it might result in some silly situations in specific cases.

Imagine I have a single cell zygote. I let it develop into an 8-cell ball (point A). I remove one of the cells, so that I have a 7 cell ball and a single isolated cell (point B). Then, I reattach the cell to the ball (Point C).

I would say the answers are:

Point A: 1 human
Point B: 2 humans
Point C: 1 human

do identical twins each have half a soul?

dermdoc said:

---

What if you believe that at conception that a human soul is formed?

Obviously that has nothing to do with science but is at the heart of this debate.

If you believe, like I do, in a supernatural Creator God that is possible.

If you do not, you depend on science completely.

That really is all this is about.

---

If zygotes are "insouled" you end up with twins sharing a soul. Also, you make god into quite the monster. There is a 30% chance of miscarriage the first 3 weeks. So if those all had souls no one has ever aborted more babies than god does on a daily basis.

There's just no sanctity of life from those here who argue 'in the name of science.'

To play dilettante's game, lets just define the beginning of a new life as the formation of distinct DNA from the egg and sperm. So a single cell zygote is a new life.

Would removing one of the cells at 8 cell stage A) cause irreparable harm to the development of the fetus? Would the fetus eventually die of complications or be born with disabilities? B) Would the single cell continue on into cell division as a perfect clone? Would reattaching it cause the same problems?

There's clearly contempt towards the idea of souls in this thread. I think part of it is that culturally, we see souls as a part of consciousness. Single cell zygotes don't have consciousness so they don't have souls. But that's not a line we can draw.

I believe God is good and all knowing and everything happens for a reason.

But the bottom line is that either you believe in a supernatural God or you do not.

That is really all this is about.

I mean, we are talking about believing God was incarnated on earth and rose from the dead.

It all depends on whether you are looking at abortion or any issue through Christian lenses or not.

And it is futile to argue with a non believer because to them it is foolish.

one MEEN Ag said:

---

Would removing one of the cells at 8 cell stage A) cause irreparable harm to the development of the fetus? Would the fetus eventually die of complications or be born with disabilities? B) Would the single cell continue on into cell division as a perfect clone? Would reattaching it cause the same problems?

---

No, no, yes, and no respectively. Sorry, I should have been more clear.

I think this type of messing with embryos is currently possible, and it produces healthy fetuses. I'm thinking of CRISPR specifically, where I know individual cells have been removed and altered, then replaced resulting in mosaicism. I could be wrong though.

Nobody believes in the sanctity of life. Not even Hindus. It's a slogan, not a real tenet. People believe in the sanctity of very specific types of life under very specific circumstances.