• GreenM
    link
    -171 year ago

    i just don’t get WTH is US doing.
    Let the f***ng scientist figure out when it’s human enough and when it’s not yet human and make the line there as other countries did.
    This infighting will only ruin the states.

    • Flying Squid
      link
      301 year ago

      The definition of “human enough” would be a social and legal issue, not a scientific one, because there is no scientific definition of ‘human enough.’ Scientists can tell you what is going on with a fetus at any given time in the pregnancy, but not if that means it is too advanced to abort. Theoretically, you could abort at any time in the pregnancy and it is not up to or possible for science to tell you when.

      • @bluemellophone
        link
        English
        111 year ago

        To accentuate the argument, relying on science here is not a good idea because concepts like “viability” will very likely change with technological advancement. In 100 years, it could be perfectly possible for a fertilized egg to grow into a baby outside a mother’s womb. Eggs or sperm could be genetically modified to correct for disorders and syndromes. What would viability really mean in this scientific context?

        This argument tormented one of the SCOTUS justices on the original Roe vs. Wade decision.

        • @Bernie_Sandals
          link
          11 year ago

          Could I have a source for the viability dilemma with Roe V. Wade?

          Would love to hear more about this

          • @bluemellophone
            link
            English
            31 year ago

            I highly recommend people read / listen to The Brethren by Woodward. It is a political narration of the inner workings of the Supreme Court by one of the same reporters who took down Nixon.

            • @Bernie_Sandals
              link
              11 year ago

              Just added to my reading list, thanks for the suggestion

        • GreenM
          link
          0
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Yet concept of “feeling” to make the decision is accepted. I see few problems with it. 1st mood change. 2nd everyone feels different. 3rd anthropomorphism . 4th feelings change much faster than scientific progress.

      • GreenM
        link
        01 year ago

        Well i still find it much worse deciding based on feelings than lets say based on level of cognition or consciousness of fetus by properly defined and tested rules.

        • Flying Squid
          link
          11 year ago

          Since we can’t define or explain consciousness, that would be difficult.

          • GreenM
            link
            11 year ago

            You can’t, but it doesn’t mean people in the field should not try to make educated conclusion. It also doesn’t mean that random dude out there is wiser.

    • Roboticide
      link
      131 year ago

      That would be a great plan if we ever elected scientists to our legislature. Or even had politicians who listened to science.

      We don’t, so here we are.

      • @foyrkopp
        link
        1
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        You’d need to significantly increase overall education (both among voters ans legislators) on how science works to make the latter feasible.

        Scientists are human. Scientists have opinions. Scientists require funding. Scientists disagree.

        Simple example: The heliocentric model didn’t become accepted knowledge because the “earth is the center of the universe” crowd (who *were? scientists) was convinced by scientific argument - they weren’t. It did when they died.

        Science holds a lot of high-likelihood facts. This is what we call the “generally accepted body of knowledge”. We know that the earth is round. We can predict gravity in most circumstances. And yes, we know that anthromorphic climate change is real.

        But there’s also a lot of “game-changing” studies/experiments out there that are still to be debunked without ever making it into said body of accepted knowledge. This is normal, it is how science works.

        Yet it also means that for virtually any hair-brained opinion that is not already strongly refuted by said body of knowledge (flat earth, for example, is refuted), you can find some not yet debunked science to support it.

        Separating the wheat from the chaff here requires insight into the scientific process (and it’s assorted politics and market mechanisms) most people (and voters) don’t have.

        And no, just telling people whether a fact is broadly accepted in the scientific community or fringe science doesn’t work. We tried that with the topic of anthromorphic climate change.

      • GreenM
        link
        -11 year ago

        Then you have endless infighting because today people feels one way and tomorrow the other way.