ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Non-USA & General Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags abortion issues , abortion laws , Ireland elections , Ireland issues , Ireland politics

Reply
Old 31st May 2018, 03:21 PM   #361
Thor 2
Illuminator
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 3,864
Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
To help Vixen out in terms of answering the question of when does a clump of cells become a human being, I've shortened and modified a post I made in the other abortion thread:

.........

Lots of interesting stuff.

........

Taking all this into account, I personally think that drawing the line at which society should have a say is when the fetus becomes independently viable.

That seems to be a reasonable definition.

Vixen is stubbornly refusing to address this issue. I wonder if he/she thinks the moment of conception is the time personhood is assumed? This would be in line with Catholic thinking dogma on the subject I assume as a soul is attached then.

4 out of 5 zygotes perish you say? Where do all those souls go to one has to wonder?
__________________
Thinking is a faith hazard.
Thor 2 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st May 2018, 05:10 PM   #362
ddt
Mafia Penguin
 
ddt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 19,576
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Utter nonsense.
It's nonsense to say that you fail at math? The only other option is that you deliberately miscalculate.

Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Oh, that kind of "generation"? I don't think those researchers have that right. According to wiki:
Quote:
A minority of demographers and researchers start the generation in the mid-to-late 1970s, such as MetLife which uses birth dates ranging 1977–1994,[23] and Nielsen Media Research which uses the earliest dates from 1977 and the latest dates 1995 or 1996.[24][25][26]

The majority of researchers and demographers start the generation in the early 1980s, with some ending the generation in the mid-1990s. Australia's McCrindle Research[27] uses 1980–1994 as Generation Y birth years. A 2013 PricewaterhouseCoopers[28] report used 1980 to 1995. Gallup Inc.,[29][30][31] and MSW Research[32] use 1980–1996. Ernst and Young uses 1981–1996.[33]

A 2018 report from Pew Research Center defines Millennials as born from 1981-1996, choosing these dates for "key political, economic and social factors", including September 11th terrorist attacks. This range makes Millennials 5-20 years old at the time of the attacks so "old enough to comprehend the historical significance". Pew indicated they'd use 1981-1996 for future publications but would remain open to date recalibration.[34]

Some end the generation in the late 1990s or early 2000s. Goldman Sachs,[35] Resolution Foundation,[36][37] and a 2013 Time magazine cover story[38] all use 1980–2000. SYZYGY, a digital service agency partially owned by WPP, uses 1981–1998,[39][40] and the United States Census Bureau uses 1982–2000.[41] The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary describes Millennials as those born roughly between the 1980s and 1990s.[42]

Demographers William Straus and Neil Howe who are widely credited with coining the term, define Millennials as born between 1982–2004.[2] However, Howe described the dividing line between millennials and the following Generation Z as "tentative", saying "you can’t be sure where history will someday draw a cohort dividing line until a generation fully comes of age". He noted that the millennials' range beginning in 1982 would point to the next generation's window starting between 2000 and 2006.[43]
The smallest year range I see there is 15 years.
__________________
"I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people." - "Saint" Teresa, the lying thieving Albanian dwarf

"I think accuracy is important" - Vixen
ddt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st May 2018, 05:57 PM   #363
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 13,876
Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
To help Vixen out in terms of answering the question of when does a clump of cells become a human being, I've shortened and modified a post I made in the other abortion thread:

There is no line that demarcates when a given sperm and a given oocyte become a human being. Certainly not the sperm or oocyte themselves- billions of one and scores of the other are thrown away in one's life time, so each of use leaves a trail of dead pre-humans behind us as we live our lives. And neither biology nor God care- that's the way it is set up!

The moment of conception after that one sperm and one oocyte meet? Well, probably 4 out of 5 of those zygotes are also discarded naturally, often because of severe flaws making successful development impossible, so again neither biology nor a deity appear to have invested much value in that stage. And in fact we do not assign humanity to single diploid cells in any other context: we shed from inside our cheeks every time we brush our teeth, excrete them with our poop. donate them to others when we donate blood, etc. Billions of them die naturally inside our bodies every day. We even intentionally try to kill them as savagely as possible when they become cancers. I have in my lab human cells from people who died many years ago. I use them for medical research to help actual human beings; should I give them funerals when I finish an experiment?

Some anti-abortion people say that a single-celled zygote has the potential to become a whole human being and therefore must be protected! Well I have bad news for them: many cells in our body have the potential to become a whole human being through somatic cell cloning/de-differentiation/somatic stem cell techniques. A cheek cell could become your younger identical twin- should there be a law to prevent you from spitting her or him down the sink?

So when does a zygote become a human life? Think about it: we don't consider killing plants, or fish, or flies murder, so presumably becoming human means the zygote must advance enough to become something special, something characteristic of humans and not of plants or other animals. It is not simply when the heart beats. It is not simply when the first action potentials occur in the tiny clump that will become a brain. Trout have much more advanced hearts and brains than do 3 month old human embryos, yet killing trout falls under fish and game regulations and not the criminal justice system!

Therefore the answer to when a zygote becomes a human being is one that must depends on one's personal views of living things in general and are typically based on considerations of intelligence of the creature under consideration. If you are profoundly sensitive to the sanctity of all life you need to be a strict vegetarian (perhaps one of those who only eat fruit that fall naturally from trees). I would fully respect that. However most of us feel comfortable with eating fish, or even cows; I eat both and biologically speaking the embryo is functionally and mentally inferior to what went into my hamburger.

But okay, perhaps you are a fruitarian and value all life equally. Fine- avoid chicken McNuggets and don't have an abortion yourself. But your views, no one person's views in fact, are so obviously the correct ones as to be imposed by society on all. And in particular, given it is the pregnant woman who carries the mass of cells and for whom the decision is most difficult and most personal, I very much believe it is her decision based on her views. Not yours, not mine, and certainly not the views held by only a minority of people in Ireland.

Taking all this into account, I personally think that drawing the line at which society should have a say is when the fetus becomes independently viable.

The old 'it's just a clump of cells' argument, which you've extended to include cancer cells or exfoliate cells. You bring in emotive words like 'murder' when describing plants and fish being used for food.

There are plenty of people who don't eat fish and some who only eat fruit that has already fallen. You do know there is a theory that the reason strawberries only go bright red and sweet to taste when their seeds are ripe, is so that animals are attracted to them and spread their seeds in excretion.

So it's nonsense to describe the natural ecosystem as 'murder'.

All this talk of 'clumps of cells' is merely to rationalise away the callous disregard for a real human being.

OK so it's tiny, but then so are you, against the perspective of the entire universe, or even in respect of a satellite picture of your street. Does that mean you are not human, just because in the grand scheme of things, you are a mere speck?

So, neither of your arguments hold. A cancer cell never was going to be an autonomous independent human being.

So that the poor ignorant ill-educated teenager doesn't feel bad about aborting her baby, she is encouraged to think of it as 'just an it, a clump of cells'.

An old friend of mine from school A., was expecting twins (in adulthood). She didn't know what to do as it was unplanned. Another friend advised her, oh, it's just a clump of cells at this stage.

Years later, the other friend is now being blamed for advising A. 'to get rid' of her twins. Yes, she bitterly regrets it, because they never were an 'it'. The other friend is furious at being blamed, so it's a bummer all round.
__________________
If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth and beauty. ~ Japanese Proverb

Last edited by Vixen; 31st May 2018 at 06:01 PM.
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st May 2018, 06:03 PM   #364
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 13,876
Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
My God! That means in just over 250 years the entire population of England and Wales will be destroyed! That is awful! And after that we will begin to accumulate more and more negatively numbered people. You see - I know math too!

Thankfully we have left Scotland out of our mathematical discussion so the future supply of whiskey and haggis will not be affected.
Sarcasm is another way of trivialising it.
__________________
If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth and beauty. ~ Japanese Proverb
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st May 2018, 07:58 PM   #365
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 14,698
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
The old 'it's just a clump of cells' argument, which you've extended to include cancer cells or exfoliate cells. You bring in emotive words like 'murder' when describing plants and fish being used for food.

There are plenty of people who don't eat fish and some who only eat fruit that has already fallen. You do know there is a theory that the reason strawberries only go bright red and sweet to taste when their seeds are ripe, is so that animals are attracted to them and spread their seeds in excretion.

So it's nonsense to describe the natural ecosystem as 'murder'.

All this talk of 'clumps of cells' is merely to rationalise away the callous disregard for a real human being.

OK so it's tiny, but then so are you, against the perspective of the entire universe, or even in respect of a satellite picture of your street. Does that mean you are not human, just because in the grand scheme of things, you are a mere speck?

So, neither of your arguments hold. A cancer cell never was going to be an autonomous independent human being.

So that the poor ignorant ill-educated teenager doesn't feel bad about aborting her baby, she is encouraged to think of it as 'just an it, a clump of cells'.

An old friend of mine from school A., was expecting twins (in adulthood). She didn't know what to do as it was unplanned. Another friend advised her, oh, it's just a clump of cells at this stage.

Years later, the other friend is now being blamed for advising A. 'to get rid' of her twins. Yes, she bitterly regrets it, because they never were an 'it'. The other friend is furious at being blamed, so it's a bummer all round.
You did catch on that an important point of my post was to trivialize the concept that a clump of cells is a human being. It was an easy point for me to make because a clump of cells is a trivial lump of living matter compared to an actual human being for the multiple reasons I described. Notably none of your post actually addresses the reasons I gave in making this point or tries to refute it. If you do decide to address my argument you may wish to re-read my post because you got a lot of it wrong. I specifically state that we do not consider eating plants or most animals as murder: the exact opposite of what you accuse me of saying. I brought up that there are many who are vegetarians and fruitarians,, yet you seem to think that stating this again is refuting my argument! And my argument had nothing to do with an embryo being tiny - it had to do with the lack of the features and capabilities in an embryo that we typically use to define what it is to be human.

Once again, your emotional condemnation of abortion as murder is based on your definition of an embryo as a human being; I explained why there are many reasons it is not by most persons' definition of human. You are free to disagree of course, but not to impose your minority (and rather contrary to the science of development) view on all others. Perhaps you will now take this opportunity to answer the question and describe your own view of when a sperm and egg become a person? And the basis for your thinking on this?

Last edited by Giordano; 31st May 2018 at 08:27 PM.
Giordano is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st May 2018, 08:03 PM   #366
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 14,698
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Sarcasm is another way of trivialising it.
I was addressing your math, not embryology.
Giordano is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st May 2018, 08:33 PM   #367
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 14,698
One last point for now: anecdotes about people having abortions and later regretting them are just that, anecdotes. There are many others who have had abortions and later appreciate how that was indeed the correct decision for them.

Just to help: the next anti-choice argument is usually, "Think how many future Einsteins are lost because they were aborted!" Are we going there next?
Giordano is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st June 2018, 04:39 AM   #368
P.J. Denyer
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 4,323
Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
One last point for now: anecdotes about people having abortions and later regretting them are just that, anecdotes. There are many others who have had abortions and later appreciate how that was indeed the correct decision for them.

Just to help: the next anti-choice argument is usually, "Think how many future Einsteins are lost because they were aborted!" Are we going there next?
Notice how they're always Einsteins or Mozarts and never Hitlers or Stalins?
__________________
"I know my brain cannot tell me what to think." - Scorpion
P.J. Denyer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st June 2018, 06:32 AM   #369
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 19,484
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
What? We are only allowed to say how many were aborted in one year, but not the total from 1 Jan 2016 to 31 Dec 2017, a period of two years?


Let's extrapolate. <snip>
Or you could stop making crap up and address the points already made.
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.
catsmate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st June 2018, 06:34 AM   #370
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 19,484
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Sarcasm is another way of trivialising it.
As is evading questions and fabricating numbers to suit your own prejudices.
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.
catsmate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st June 2018, 07:06 AM   #371
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 14,698
Originally Posted by P.J. Denyer View Post
Notice how they're always Einsteins or Mozarts and never Hitlers or Stalins?
Damn- you gave away my counter-argument!
Giordano is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st June 2018, 07:12 AM   #372
carlvs
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Chicago - Edgewater
Posts: 385
Originally Posted by P.J. Denyer View Post
Notice how they're always Einsteins or Mozarts and never Hitlers or Stalins?
It is not surprising that the anti-abortion "terrorists""movement" does not mention Hitler, as the Nazi policy on the subject (at least as it concerns "Aryan" women) sounds very familiar...
carlvs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st June 2018, 09:06 AM   #373
JesseCuster
Muse
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 828
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
The difference between 20% and 25% is 5%.
The difference between 20% and 25% is 5% of 100%.

In context of this discussion however, we were talking about the difference between a fifth of a million abortions and a quarter of a million abortions. So in this case, "100%" is "a million abortions", because you were talking about fractions of a million abortions (a quarter or 25% vs a fifth or 20%).

But "a million abortions" isn't 100% of an actual thing we were discussing so talking about a a quarter (25%) of a million abortions being 5% larger than a fifth (20%) of a million abortions makes no sense numerically whatsoever.

You could just as correctly have described 200,000 abortions as "200% of 100,000 abortions" and 250,000 abortions as "250% of 100,000 abortions" and then claimed that the larger figure is 50% larger than the smaller figure. Would that make sense?

Your mistake would have been excusable as a simple off the cuff error, but you insisted on defending your claims. I hope your numerical skills aren't as sloppy when you're doing accounting work.
JesseCuster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st June 2018, 09:56 AM   #374
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 13,876
Originally Posted by JesseCuster View Post
The difference between 20% and 25% is 5% of 100%.

In context of this discussion however, we were talking about the difference between a fifth of a million abortions and a quarter of a million abortions. So in this case, "100%" is "a million abortions", because you were talking about fractions of a million abortions (a quarter or 25% vs a fifth or 20%).

But "a million abortions" isn't 100% of an actual thing we were discussing so talking about a a quarter (25%) of a million abortions being 5% larger than a fifth (20%) of a million abortions makes no sense numerically whatsoever.

You could just as correctly have described 200,000 abortions as "200% of 100,000 abortions" and 250,000 abortions as "250% of 100,000 abortions" and then claimed that the larger figure is 50% larger than the smaller figure. Would that make sense?

Your mistake would have been excusable as a simple off the cuff error, but you insisted on defending your claims. I hope your numerical skills aren't as sloppy when you're doing accounting work.
Er, what do you think per cent means?
__________________
If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth and beauty. ~ Japanese Proverb
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st June 2018, 09:58 AM   #375
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 13,876
Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
You did catch on that an important point of my post was to trivialize the concept that a clump of cells is a human being. It was an easy point for me to make because a clump of cells is a trivial lump of living matter compared to an actual human being for the multiple reasons I described. Notably none of your post actually addresses the reasons I gave in making this point or tries to refute it. If you do decide to address my argument you may wish to re-read my post because you got a lot of it wrong. I specifically state that we do not consider eating plants or most animals as murder: the exact opposite of what you accuse me of saying. I brought up that there are many who are vegetarians and fruitarians,, yet you seem to think that stating this again is refuting my argument! And my argument had nothing to do with an embryo being tiny - it had to do with the lack of the features and capabilities in an embryo that we typically use to define what it is to be human.

Once again, your emotional condemnation of abortion as murder is based on your definition of an embryo as a human being; I explained why there are many reasons it is not by most persons' definition of human. You are free to disagree of course, but not to impose your minority (and rather contrary to the science of development) view on all others. Perhaps you will now take this opportunity to answer the question and describe your own view of when a sperm and egg become a person? And the basis for your thinking on this?
Murder is a criminal offence. Aborting your baby is not.
__________________
If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth and beauty. ~ Japanese Proverb
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st June 2018, 10:15 AM   #376
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 22,470
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
... I wonder if he/she thinks the moment of conception is the time personhood is assumed? ...

4 out of 5 zygotes perish you say? Where do all those souls go to one has to wonder?
And what do they do when they get there?
Craig B is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st June 2018, 11:09 AM   #377
JesseCuster
Muse
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 828
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Er, what do you think per cent means?
I know exactly what it means. I'm laying your mistake out as simply as possible in order to explain it.

I think my explanation of your error is pretty clear. Was there anything wrong in anything I said? If so, can you explain? I'm not sure what point you think you're making here.

A quarter of a million abortions is NOT 5% larger than than a fifth of a million abortions, it is in fact 25% larger because 250,000/200,000 = 1.25 = 125%, therefore 25% larger. In what context does it make sense that it's 5% larger? 5% of what larger?

I don't know if you're trying to defend yourself with the post I've just quoted if you're trying to deflect by making some sarcastic comment. Like I said, people wouldn't insist on correcting you if you just made a minor mistake and admitted. Instead you're trying to double down on what is a rudimentary mistake that someone with the basic numeracy skills necessary to be an accountant should not be making.
JesseCuster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st June 2018, 11:26 AM   #378
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 13,876
Originally Posted by JesseCuster View Post
I know exactly what it means. I'm laying your mistake out as simply as possible in order to explain it.

I think my explanation of your error is pretty clear. Was there anything wrong in anything I said? If so, can you explain? I'm not sure what point you think you're making here.

A quarter of a million abortions is NOT 5% larger than than a fifth of a million abortions, it is in fact 25% larger because 250,000/200,000 = 1.25 = 125%, therefore 25% larger. In what context does it make sense that it's 5% larger? 5% of what larger?

I don't know if you're trying to defend yourself with the post I've just quoted if you're trying to deflect by making some sarcastic comment. Like I said, people wouldn't insist on correcting you if you just made a minor mistake and admitted. Instead you're trying to double down on what is a rudimentary mistake that someone with the basic numeracy skills necessary to be an accountant should not be making.
Somebody, Thor I think, said there was a 'big difference between one-fifth and one-quarter'. I said there is not much difference between the two.

No amount of ad hominem changes it. The difference between 20% and 25% remains 5%.
__________________
If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth and beauty. ~ Japanese Proverb
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st June 2018, 11:59 AM   #379
Dr. Keith
Not a doctor.
 
Dr. Keith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 16,671
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Somebody, Thor I think, said there was a 'big difference between one-fifth and one-quarter'. I said there is not much difference between the two.

No amount of ad hominem changes it. The difference between 20% and 25% remains 5%.
5% of what?

(And it is a 25% increase.)

As has been pointed out, multiple times: we are not talking about a portion of 100 things. We are talking about an actual number that is about 180k to 190k and you saying it is about 250k. So, you were overstating the number by over 30%. Even though you had an actual number right there. You say it is simplifying, but to everyone else it just looks dishonest.

That you persist in this bad argument makes me less open to any other argument you may take the time to make. Is suspect my responses may have the same impact on you.
__________________
I once proposed a fun ban.

Suffering is not a punishment not a fruit of sin, it is a gift of God.
He allows us to share in His suffering and to make up for the sins of the world. -Mother Teresa
Dr. Keith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st June 2018, 01:19 PM   #380
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 14,698
Originally Posted by Dr. Keith View Post
5% of what?

(And it is a 25% increase.)

As has been pointed out, multiple times: we are not talking about a portion of 100 things. We are talking about an actual number that is about 180k to 190k and you saying it is about 250k. So, you were overstating the number by over 30%. Even though you had an actual number right there. You say it is simplifying, but to everyone else it just looks dishonest.

That you persist in this bad argument makes me less open to any other argument you may take the time to make. Is suspect my responses may have the same impact on you.
Exactly. Vixen's "math" and her persistence in her continued defense of it undermines the confidence one might place in the remainder of her arguments.

Last edited by Giordano; 1st June 2018 at 01:35 PM. Reason: toned down the original text
Giordano is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st June 2018, 01:32 PM   #381
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 14,698
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Murder is a criminal offence. Aborting your baby is not.
Not in Ireland, not before the referendum. It was a criminal offense. Fortunately that will soon change.

But hey- your post still doesn't address the question in the post you quoted and that you have been asked in other posts: in your own view, when a sperm and egg become a person? And why do you think that way?

I am not trying for a gotcha here: the key to your own objections against abortion all depend on a view of an embryo as a human being. When do you think this becomes true? Does it become true at the moment of puberty for the mom and dad when they begin to produce fertile gametes? Or does it become true only at the moment of fertilization? Or some point in later in development? You must have thought about it. Just share. Maybe you will convince others that you are right.

Last edited by Giordano; 1st June 2018 at 01:40 PM.
Giordano is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st June 2018, 01:40 PM   #382
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 13,876
Originally Posted by Dr. Keith View Post
5% of what?

(And it is a 25% increase.)

As has been pointed out, multiple times: we are not talking about a portion of 100 things. We are talking about an actual number that is about 180k to 190k and you saying it is about 250k. So, you were overstating the number by over 30%. Even though you had an actual number right there. You say it is simplifying, but to everyone else it just looks dishonest.

That you persist in this bad argument makes me less open to any other argument you may take the time to make. Is suspect my responses may have the same impact on you.
I said 182K and then in conversational English I said it was nearly quarter of a million.

Do you understand what 'nearly' means'?

As you had both figures before you, I fail to see how you can claim outrage.

In fact, the true number is 185K for England & Wales and 12K for Scotland, which gives 197K.

You are not shocked by that.
__________________
If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth and beauty. ~ Japanese Proverb

Last edited by Vixen; 1st June 2018 at 02:12 PM.
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st June 2018, 01:46 PM   #383
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 13,876
Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
Not in Ireland, not before the referendum. It was a criminal offense. Fortunately that will soon change.

But hey- your post still doesn't address the question in the post you quoted and that you have been asked in other posts: in your own view, when a sperm and egg become a person? And why do you think that way?

I am not trying for a gotcha here: the key to your own objections against abortion all depend on a view of an embryo as a human being. When do you think this becomes true? Does it become true at the moment of puberty for the mom and dad when they begin to produce fertile gametes? Or does it become true only at the moment of fertilization? Or some point in later in development? You must have thought about it. Just share. Maybe you will convince others that you are right.
A foetus shares exactly 50% of its chromosomes with its father and 50% with its mother. It is a unique being in its own right.

No mother - nor any parent - 'owns' their children.

The claim 'a woman's right to get rid of an unwanted foetus' is just an empty slogan, designed to make us believe it is pure sexism that constrains it.
__________________
If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth and beauty. ~ Japanese Proverb
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st June 2018, 01:55 PM   #384
Thor 2
Illuminator
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 3,864
Originally Posted by Giordano View Post

.......

Once again, your emotional condemnation of abortion as murder is based on your definition of an embryo as a human being; I explained why there are many reasons it is not by most persons' definition of human. You are free to disagree of course, but not to impose your minority (and rather contrary to the science of development) view on all others. Perhaps you will now take this opportunity to answer the question and describe your own view of when a sperm and egg become a person? And the basis for your thinking on this?
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Murder is a criminal offence. Aborting your baby is not.
Have you been living under a rock? This thread is about a referendum to decriminalise abortion in Ireland. Something that you oppose. In countries like El Salvador abortion is regarded as murder and women are punished as such if they get one.

How about now answering the question put by Giordano and myself:

In your own view of when does a sperm and egg become a person?

Perhaps we are expecting too much here in asking for your own view. Do you have one or are you just giving us canned answers from a religious source?
__________________
Thinking is a faith hazard.
Thor 2 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st June 2018, 02:17 PM   #385
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 13,876
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
Have you been living under a rock? This thread is about a referendum to decriminalise abortion in Ireland. Something that you oppose. In countries like El Salvador abortion is regarded as murder and women are punished as such if they get one.

How about now answering the question put by Giordano and myself:

In your own view of when does a sperm and egg become a person?

Perhaps we are expecting too much here in asking for your own view. Do you have one or are you just giving us canned answers from a religious source?
I tend to agree with removing the Amendment in question in genuine medical circumstances.

What annoys me are the mindless slogans and the idea that women are being somehow being liberated. The problem with sloganising means people fail to think. They just go along with whatever is trendy, as though protection of the unborn child is an abhorrent suppression of 'women's rights'.

Let me know what your definition of a person is and I'll give you an answer.
__________________
If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth and beauty. ~ Japanese Proverb
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st June 2018, 02:19 PM   #386
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 14,698
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
A foetus shares exactly 50% of its chromosomes with its father and 50% with its mother. It is a unique being in its own right.

No mother - nor any parent - 'owns' their children.

The claim 'a woman's right to get rid of an unwanted foetus' is just an empty slogan, designed to make us believe it is pure sexism that constrains it.
For some reason you are still avoiding a direct answer to my question. And you are certainly ignoring all the content of my prior posts and instead making up strawmen for you to refute (e.g. I never suggested that a parent owns their children. even though with all the money I've investigated in mine I should have acquired some ownership rights by now).

But perhaps I can extrapolate from what you did post. Just for purposes of subsequent discussion: is it your view that a human being begins at the moment of fertilization? And you hold this view is because that is when it receives a unique set of chromosomes? Or was your point relating only to non-ownership rather than the onset of human-hood?

See- no gotcha- just trying to understand what your views really are...

Last edited by Giordano; 1st June 2018 at 02:22 PM.
Giordano is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st June 2018, 03:43 PM   #387
Thor 2
Illuminator
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 3,864
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
I tend to agree with removing the Amendment in question in genuine medical circumstances.

What annoys me are the mindless slogans and the idea that women are being somehow being liberated. The problem with sloganising means people fail to think. They just go along with whatever is trendy, as though protection of the unborn child is an abhorrent suppression of 'women's rights'.

Let me know what your definition of a person is and I'll give you an answer.

Once again you dodge the question.

You got my definition up there ^. I tend to agree with Giordano that the sperm and egg become a person when the fetus becomes independently viable.

Damned if I know why you must have my definition before you can give me yours though.
__________________
Thinking is a faith hazard.
Thor 2 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st June 2018, 05:53 PM   #388
JesseCuster
Muse
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 828
Quote:
The difference between 20% and 25% remains 5%.
The difference between 20% of what and 25% of what is 5% of what? Answer that in the context of the discussion in this thread.

What is it we're discussing 20% and 25% of such that it makes sense to talk about them having a 5% difference?

In the context of this thread, we were talking about the difference between a quarter of a million abortions and a fifth of a million abortions. It makes no sense in context to describe the difference between 200,000 abortions and 250,000 abortions as "5%". If you think the difference between those numbers is 5%, then I have to ask: The difference between 200,000 abortions and 250,000 abortions is 5% of what?

Last edited by JesseCuster; 1st June 2018 at 05:57 PM.
JesseCuster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st June 2018, 06:29 PM   #389
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 13,876
Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
For some reason you are still avoiding a direct answer to my question. And you are certainly ignoring all the content of my prior posts and instead making up strawmen for you to refute (e.g. I never suggested that a parent owns their children. even though with all the money I've investigated in mine I should have acquired some ownership rights by now).

But perhaps I can extrapolate from what you did post. Just for purposes of subsequent discussion: is it your view that a human being begins at the moment of fertilization? And you hold this view is because that is when it receives a unique set of chromosomes? Or was your point relating only to non-ownership rather than the onset of human-hood?

See- no gotcha- just trying to understand what your views really are...
Well, you won't like this, being an atheist, but I think this Psalm sums it up well:

Quote:
Psalm 139:13-14 King James Version (KJV)
13 For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb.

14 I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well.
Or, in plain English:

Quote:
Psalm 139:13-14 New International Version (NIV)
13 For you created my inmost being;
you knit me together in my mother’s womb.
14 I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
your works are wonderful,
I know that full well.

Choose life, Giordano.
__________________
If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth and beauty. ~ Japanese Proverb
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st June 2018, 06:32 PM   #390
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 13,876
Originally Posted by JesseCuster View Post
The difference between 20% of what and 25% of what is 5% of what? Answer that in the context of the discussion in this thread.

What is it we're discussing 20% and 25% of such that it makes sense to talk about them having a 5% difference?

In the context of this thread, we were talking about the difference between a quarter of a million abortions and a fifth of a million abortions. It makes no sense in context to describe the difference between 200,000 abortions and 250,000 abortions as "5%". If you think the difference between those numbers is 5%, then I have to ask: The difference between 200,000 abortions and 250,000 abortions is 5% of what?
Are we still dwelling on this? I have never had any misapprehension.

OK, so I ought to have described it as 'nearly one-fifth of a million', since that is common parlance, I'm sure.
__________________
If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth and beauty. ~ Japanese Proverb
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st June 2018, 06:34 PM   #391
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 13,876
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
Once again you dodge the question.

You got my definition up there ^. I tend to agree with Giordano that the sperm and egg become a person when the fetus becomes independently viable.

Damned if I know why you must have my definition before you can give me yours though.
It has to be the moment there is a fusion of ovum and spermatozoa to create that spark (electrical nerve impulse) to create a new life.
__________________
If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth and beauty. ~ Japanese Proverb
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st June 2018, 06:58 PM   #392
JesseCuster
Muse
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 828
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
The claim 'a woman's right to get rid of an unwanted foetus' is just an empty slogan, designed to make us believe it is pure sexism that constrains it.
"A woman's right to get rid of an unwanted foetus" is neither a slogan nor a claim.
JesseCuster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st June 2018, 07:04 PM   #393
JesseCuster
Muse
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 828
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Are we still dwelling on this? I have never had any misapprehension.
Yes you did. You have repeatedly asserted the same misapprehension.

Thinking that 250,000 abortions is 5% bigger than 200,000 abortions because one of those figures is 25% of a million and one of those figures is 20% of a million and therefore the difference is 5% is a glaring misapprehension. It would be excusable as an offhand comment to which you admitted your error. You have repeatedly insisted that you are right and have repeated the error over and over.

Would you describe a pay raise from $200,000 to $250,000 as a 5% pay raise because it goes from 20% of a million to 25% of a million? That makes as much (or as little) sense as your claim about a 5% difference between a fifth of a million and a quarter of a million abortions.
JesseCuster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st June 2018, 07:05 PM   #394
JesseCuster
Muse
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 828
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
OK, so I ought to have described it as 'nearly one-fifth of a million', since that is common parlance, I'm sure.
It has nothing to do with 'common parlance' and everything to do with basic arithmetic.
JesseCuster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st June 2018, 08:06 PM   #395
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 14,698
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Well, you won't like this, being an atheist, but I think this Psalm sums it up well:



Or, in plain English:




Choose life, Giordano.
Why is it that you keep quoting my posts but then not addressing the contents therein? Well that's okay because you did at last answer Thor's question, which was also my question. So your view is that a human being begins at fertilization, and I gather from your response to my post, the basis of your belief is the Bible Psalm 139: 13-14. Did I get that right? Okay. I've already explained in detail in my post 359 why the biology of development makes it impossible for me to agree with you and you can re-read my post at your leisure; no need for me to repeat myself. The only scientific point I will bring up here is that there is no spark, no electrical nerve impulse at fertilization. But there is an action potential of sodium ions and a wave of calcium ions so I will not quibble; just thought you might want to know.

I won't even try to pit science against your bible. Even recognizing other people have other bibles and other words they believe are God's, if you think God endorsed the words you quoted I doubt I could convince you otherwise. But please read the actual words you quoted (and thanks for assuming I could not possibly have read the King James Version already or possibly have understood it): the words state that the speaker believes that God knit him together (assembled him) in the womb (interestingly they are not even the words of God, just the words of the speaker- are we sure God agrees with them?) But okay, biology also says we are knit together in the womb so let's assume God agrees. But neither the Psalm nor biology says when this knitting became a human being! The Psalm doesn't address that question at all. My wife knitted a sweater in her chair in the living room. When did the wool become a sweater? Certainly not when she first joined the needles to the wool. When she completed the first row? When she got to the sleeves? To the collar? Or at the very last stitch? The rest of your quote just praises the quality of the construction and thanks God for it: it still doesn't address when the wool became a sweater.

I am not trying to get you to change your mind that human beings begin at fertilization, only trying to get you to realize that other people reasonably might read those very words, believe them to be endorsed by God and reach a legitimately different conclusion from yours. Or read a different bible. Or no bible at all. In fact many more people in Ireland did reach a different conclusion from yours. So you follow your conclusion in your life, but don't try to impose it on all others. That's my whole point.

And I very much have chosen life. I respect and cherish human beings more than you can imagine. My wife and I have knitted together two lives ourselves and raised them to be wonderful human beings. But inevitably along the way we left behind billions of dead sperm, ova, and unsuccessful zygotes; I mourn them not as lost children because they never were human beings, they never got close. They were human cells, like the billions of cells that shed off my intestine every day, but never human beings. That is just how biology works.
Giordano is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st June 2018, 08:14 PM   #396
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 42,248
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
It has to be the moment there is a fusion of ovum and spermatozoa to create that spark (electrical nerve impulse) to create a new life.
Has it? Who (apart from you) deems this so?
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill
lionking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st June 2018, 11:46 PM   #397
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 83,011
Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
Not in Ireland, not before the referendum. It was a criminal offense. Fortunately that will soon change.

But hey- your post still doesn't address the question in the post you quoted and that you have been asked in other posts: in your own view, when a sperm and egg become a person? And why do you think that way?

I am not trying for a gotcha here: the key to your own objections against abortion all depend on a view of an embryo as a human being. When do you think this becomes true? Does it become true at the moment of puberty for the mom and dad when they begin to produce fertile gametes? Or does it become true only at the moment of fertilization? Or some point in later in development? You must have thought about it. Just share. Maybe you will convince others that you are right.
Vixen has by her own reasoning demonstrated and said that she is in support of involuntary euthanasia for nonviable babies so she doesn't have to have a point where it changes from being a removal of biological matter to being the killing of a baby.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st June 2018, 11:49 PM   #398
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 83,011
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
Has it? Who (apart from you) deems this so?
And never mind that there is no "spark" as she describes it for quite some time after conception.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you

Last edited by Darat; 1st June 2018 at 11:50 PM. Reason: No sparks just a spark
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd June 2018, 12:53 AM   #399
Thor 2
Illuminator
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 3,864
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
It has to be the moment there is a fusion of ovum and spermatozoa to create that spark (electrical nerve impulse) to create a new life.

Same as the Catholic thinking dogma then. Just a bit of quasi science thrown in. Have any comment about the major majority of those fusions being extinguished then? By God that is.
__________________
Thinking is a faith hazard.
Thor 2 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd June 2018, 01:08 AM   #400
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Arcadia, Greece
Posts: 23,482
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
It has to be the moment there is a fusion of ovum and spermatozoa to create that spark (electrical nerve impulse) to create a new life.
What nerve impulse? Meanwhile, if a number of eggs are fertilised in vitro, is there then a moral obligation to implant them all on the grounds that each one constitutes 'a life'?
__________________
"Even a broken clock is right twice a day. 9/11 truth is a clock with no hands." - Beachnut
GlennB is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Non-USA & General Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:31 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.