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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Could I have a source for the viability dilemma with Roe V. Wade?
Would love to hear more about this
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.
Just added to my reading list, thanks for the suggestion
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.
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.
Since we can’t define or explain consciousness, that would be difficult.
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.
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.
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.
Then you have endless infighting because today people feels one way and tomorrow the other way.