2018 Gallup Abortion Poll: Dead Heat Between "Pro-Life" and "Pro-Choice"

[136or142]

48-48 on the pro-life/pro-choice question, but by a margin of 53/43, people say it should be illegal in all or most cases.
http://news.gallup.com/poll/235445/abortion-attitudes-remain-closely-divided.aspx?g_source=link_NEWSV9&g_medium=TOPIC&g_campaign=item_&g_content=U.S.%2520Abortion%2520Attitudes%2520Remain%2520Closely%2520Divided

I wonder what the result would have been if the question had been much more accurate like 'anti-abortion/pro choice'

[136or142]

Welcome to America, where we are the one developed western nation where this is still an issue, apparently.

That's a good thing. At least a significant portion of our population still has a moral conscience.

I'm sure this is much more tied to the anti-learning anti-science attitude in America.

[136or142]

Welcome to America, where we are the one developed western nation where this is still an issue, apparently.

That's a good thing. At least a significant portion of our population still has a moral conscience.

I'm sure this is much more tied to the anti-learning anti-science attitude in America.

Since when does the question of when personhood begins have to do with being pro- or anti-science?  This is an ethical/moral issue, not a scientific one.

Only a person who doesn't understand the science could make a statement that ridiculous.

[136or142]

Welcome to America, where we are the one developed western nation where this is still an issue, apparently.

That's a good thing. At least a significant portion of our population still has a moral conscience.

I'm sure this is much more tied to the anti-learning anti-science attitude in America.

Since when does the question of when personhood begins have to do with being pro- or anti-science?  This is an ethical/moral issue, not a scientific one.

Only a person who doesn't understand the science could make a statement that ridiculous.

Only a person who doesn't understand science could think that a scientific definition of personhood is even in principle possible.

Maybe not a precise definition, but certainly a much more informed definition.  If you are claiming, for instance, that the experts on this can't say that there is a difference regarding the personhood between a 1 week old fetus and a baby, I'd say you're outright lying.  This holds true for a 10 week old fetus and several further weeks out as well.

The general argument I use with things like this is "Just because we don't know everything, it doesn't follow that we don't know anything."

It seems to me that is exactly what you are doing: claiming that because it's impossible for science to know everything about the personhood of a fetus, that they can't know anything.

From what I've seen, this is a fairly standard trick of 'religious' conservatives.  "There are holes in evolution, therefore 'intelligent design' is an equivalent alternative."  (A great deal of these 'holes' aren't even true either, but are also 'religious' conservatives misrepresenting the science, or stating outright falsehoods.)  "Evolution is just a theory."

It amazes me how many people who claim to be religious repeatedly and shamelessly violate the 8th Commandment.  

[136or142]

Welcome to America, where we are the one developed western nation where this is still an issue, apparently.

That's a good thing. At least a significant portion of our population still has a moral conscience.

I'm sure this is much more tied to the anti-learning anti-science attitude in America.

Since when does the question of when personhood begins have to do with being pro- or anti-science?  This is an ethical/moral issue, not a scientific one.

Only a person who doesn't understand the science could make a statement that ridiculous.

Only a person who doesn't understand science could think that a scientific definition of personhood is even in principle possible.

Maybe not a precise definition, but certainly a much more informed definition.  If you are claiming, for instance, that the experts on this can't say that there is a difference regarding the personhood between a 1 week old fetus and a baby, I'd say you're outright lying.  This holds true for a 10 week old fetus and several further weeks out as well.

The general argument I use with things like this is "Just because we don't know everything, it doesn't follow that we don't know anything."

It seems to me that is exactly what you are doing: claiming that because it's impossible for science to know everything about the personhood of a fetus, that they don't know anything.

From what I've seen, this is a fairly standard trick of 'religious' conservatives.  "There are holes in evolution, therefore 'intelligent design' is an equivalent alternative."  (A great deal of these 'holes' aren't even true either, but are also 'religious' conservatives misrepresenting the science, or stating outright falsehoods.)  "Evolution is just a theory."

It amazes me how many people who claim to be religious repeatedly and shamelessly violate the 8th Commandment.  

There is also a big difference between a newborn and a 50 year old, but they are both human.  Same thing with a newborn and a 1 second old unborn baby.

On the second part, not according to the science.  You can believe any falsehood you like, that doesn't make it true.

Also, your analogy is absurd.

[136or142]

Welcome to America, where we are the one developed western nation where this is still an issue, apparently.

That's a good thing. At least a significant portion of our population still has a moral conscience.

I'm sure this is much more tied to the anti-learning anti-science attitude in America.

Since when does the question of when personhood begins have to do with being pro- or anti-science?  This is an ethical/moral issue, not a scientific one.

Only a person who doesn't understand the science could make a statement that ridiculous.

Only a person who doesn't understand science could think that a scientific definition of personhood is even in principle possible.

Maybe not a precise definition, but certainly a much more informed definition.  If you are claiming, for instance, that the experts on this can't say that there is a difference regarding the personhood between a 1 week old fetus and a baby, I'd say you're outright lying.  This holds true for a 10 week old fetus and several further weeks out as well.

The general argument I use with things like this is "Just because we don't know everything, it doesn't follow that we don't know anything."

It seems to me that is exactly what you are doing: claiming that because it's impossible for science to know everything about the personhood of a fetus, that they don't know anything.

From what I've seen, this is a fairly standard trick of 'religious' conservatives.  "There are holes in evolution, therefore 'intelligent design' is an equivalent alternative."  (A great deal of these 'holes' aren't even true either, but are also 'religious' conservatives misrepresenting the science, or stating outright falsehoods.)  "Evolution is just a theory."

It amazes me how many people who claim to be religious repeatedly and shamelessly violate the 8th Commandment. 

There is also a big difference between a newborn and a 50 year old, but they are both human.  Same thing with a newborn and a 1 second old unborn baby.

On the second part, not according to the science.  You can believe any falsehood you like, that doesn't make it true.

Conception is a process over the course of days unless you want to break it down further.

And the development of the fetus is a process over several months.

[136or142]

Or put another way...

In another thread you argued a ten week old fetus is not a person due to their lack of brain activity (or something along those lines). You clearly relied on science to determine the brain activity of a fetus. You did not however rely on science in your claim that a certain level of fetal brain activity is required for personhood. That claim is a question of ethics.

"Higher brainwave functions."

Personhood is a question of ethics because it's not a scientific term.  That, however, also raises the issue of whether 'personhood' is even a valid part of any debate on abortion as opposed to a (conservative) religious construct.

I should have challenged the use of this term right away on those grounds, but I didn't think the terminology here was that big a deal.

I did not accuse either of you of lying.  Neither of you hardly wrote anything.  What I wrote is that 'Christian' conservatives claims on evolution and the science of abortion/fetus development are frequently based on lies or deliberate misrepresentations (which is just another term for 'lie' but is more precise).  The only person I said lied here is 'extreme conservative.'

[136or142]

Welcome to America, where we are the one developed western nation where this is still an issue, apparently.

Poland doesn’t count?

Poland is still a developing nation.

[136or142]

Maybe not a precise definition, but certainly a much more informed definition.  If you are claiming, for instance, that the experts on this can't say that there is a difference regarding the personhood between a 1 week old fetus and a baby, I'd say you're outright lying.  This holds true for a 10 week old fetus and several further weeks out as well.

The general argument I use with things like this is "Just because we don't know everything, it doesn't follow that we don't know anything."

It seems to me that is exactly what you are doing: claiming that because it's impossible for science to know everything about the personhood of a fetus, that they can't know anything.

From what I've seen, this is a fairly standard trick of 'religious' conservatives.  "There are holes in evolution, therefore 'intelligent design' is an equivalent alternative."  (A great deal of these 'holes' aren't even true either, but are also 'religious' conservatives misrepresenting the science, or stating outright falsehoods.)  "Evolution is just a theory."

It amazes me how many people who claim to be religious repeatedly and shamelessly violate the 8th Commandment.

My point was different from the argument to which you responded here. It was not that we have incomplete scientific knowledge of the fetal development process ergo science cannot adequately determine when personhood begins. It was that there is no scientific basis for personhood as a concept whatsoever. As far as science is concerned we may just as well all be naught but atoms and the void. Science does not prove we're naught but atoms and the void, yet such a question is in principle unanswerable by science.

Contrary to what some people think, there is, necessarily so, more to knowledge than what can be ascertained by science. To understand how we can be absolutely certain of this, consider the proposition that only what can be ascertained through the scientific process is true. Well, that statement can't be ascertained through the scientific process. Thus science is a subset of philosophy and simply because a concept cannot be scientifically verified does not mean it can be dismissed out-of-hand. Now, you can likely then think of many ludicrous ideas that cannot be proven by science and could then claim I should accept them since I don't think all ideas that cannot be proven by science should be dismissed out-of-hand. Simply because I accept some ideas unprovable by science doesn't mean I accept all ideas unprovable by science (which is a position literally everyone holds whether they admit it or not).

Personhood is a question of ethics because it's not a scientific term.  That, however, also raises the issue of whether 'personhood' is even a valid part of any debate on abortion as opposed to a (conservative) religious construct.

I should have challenged the use of this term right away on those grounds, but I didn't think the terminology here was that big a deal.

The exact question of "personhood" is unavoidably a question that has to be addressed in some fashion in order to have a political system of any kind (not necessarily answered in the context of abortion but necessary to have in general). For instance, without some abstract concept of personhood, a government has no idea who its citizens are or who has rights. That is why a concept that there are persons at all is a pretty important one. You are of course free to deny altogether that "person" is a meaningful category at all, but that's probably not where you're going. Thus I object to calling in only a "religious construct" unless you're willing to defend reductive or eliminative materialism.

As for abortion, it is, I think, incredibly obvious that the question of whether or not a fetus is a person (and thus should be protected under law) is very much a relevant one. Indeed it's rather hard to imagine any honest consideration of the issue at all without recognizing the relevance of that question.

If you want to limit individual choice in a fundamental area such as this, I think you need something more than a vague concept like 'the soul.'

[136or142]

Or put another way...

In another thread you argued a ten week old fetus is not a person due to their lack of brain activity (or something along those lines). You clearly relied on science to determine the brain activity of a fetus. You did not however rely on science in your claim that a certain level of fetal brain activity is required for personhood. That claim is a question of ethics.

Personhood is not a biological or scientific concept. It is a legal and ethical one.

Fetuses have never been accorded personhood by any society. Religious arguments against abortion rely on the idea that it is going against God's will, not that it is a violation of the fetus's individual rights as a person (which would be a very post-Enlightenment perspective to argue from).

That is an incomplete account of the conservative Christian perspective. You omit the why in why abortion is against God's will. .

According to some interpretations of Scripture.

[136or142]

Or put another way...

In another thread you argued a ten week old fetus is not a person due to their lack of brain activity (or something along those lines). You clearly relied on science to determine the brain activity of a fetus. You did not however rely on science in your claim that a certain level of fetal brain activity is required for personhood. That claim is a question of ethics.

Personhood is not a biological or scientific concept. It is a legal and ethical one.

Fetuses have never been accorded personhood by any society. Religious arguments against abortion rely on the idea that it is going against God's will, not that it is a violation of the fetus's individual rights as a person (which would be a very post-Enlightenment perspective to argue from).

That is an incomplete account of the conservative Christian perspective. You omit the why in why abortion is against God's will. .

According to some interpretations of Scripture.

That's step one, keep going.

Everything dies (baby) that's a fact
but maybe everything that dies someday comes back