Live data from Hacker News

They Think It's Murder

richarddawkins.com

61–70 of 170 posts

Re: They Think It's Murder

#61
post #9

It is murder, simple as that. The moment a sperm fertilizes an egg, a new unique genetic material is formed, which is damn near the closest thing we have to an objective standard of when a new human life is started. Embryo is a stage of development in a human being (and many other life forms on this planet). Maybe it's not synonymous with baby, I could grant that, and allow for baby to represent a different and later…

Oh, argument over I guess.

You don't get to play the fallacy card when you start off stating your premises is irrefutable. All you've manage to argue here is "it's murder because I say so."

Re: They Think It's Murder

#63
post #11

The article completely fails to mention that religious people tend to believe that humans have a "soul" and animals don't, which seems to me to be a massive oversight. Of course Dawkins doesn't believe in the soul, but it's hard to see how his arguments are going to move anyone who does believe. The other problem with the argument is that, on the other side, many vegans believe that killing animals for food is wrong.

I think the main argument that Dawkins wanted to make is that many pro-choice arguments are completely missing the point and don't engage with the pro-life arguments at all, rather than try to engage with all pro-life arguments, and do a full exploration of them.

Re: They Think It's Murder

#64
post #61
post #9

It is murder, simple as that. The moment a sperm fertilizes an egg, a new unique genetic material is formed, which is damn near the closest thing we have to an objective standard of when a new human life is started. Embryo is a stage of development in a human being (and many other life forms on this planet). Maybe it's not synonymous with baby, I could grant that, and allow for baby to represent a different and later…

Oh, argument over I guess. You don't get to play the fallacy card when you start off stating your premises is irrefutable. All you've manage to argue here is "it's murder because I say so."

Then I'll make it really simple for you.

Human life begins at conception. Deliberately killing other humans is murder. Killing a human being in the womb is thus murder.

Re: They Think It's Murder

#66
I think most important is considering the 1A. I don't think it's likely to persuade people on this topic, change their minds about what they believe in regards to the subject. But surely we can agree the 1A should be respected? Not everyone agrees life begins at conception/implantation/etc. Opening the door to one religion dominating the laws seems to lead to outlawing contraceptives (preventing implantation of a fertilized egg) on the basis of enforcing the belief that life begins at fertilization of the egg.

I don't fully understand anti-choice advocates and most of the ones I know refuse to discuss the subject, of those who do their reasoning most often comes down to their religious beliefs- and if the basis of outlawing a medical procedure is one specific religious belief, is it not a violation of the free expression of other people's beliefs to deny them the ability to make decisions because of one specific belief system?

Opinions aside, it looks like a fundamental disregard for other religions and beliefs is at play here.

I don't think most pro-choice people are anti-natalists nor would they advocate for the death of people who have been born... the main reasoning seems to be women's access to healthcare, privacy, not criminalizing the decision of people seeking a procedure based on moral judgements built on spiritual beliefs, protecting people from collateral criminalization relating to miscarriages, and preventing needless mortality in pregnancy-related issues.

Re: They Think It's Murder

#67
post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then it'll depend on the intent.

And how would you determine the intent?

What is the drug designed for and why was it taken?

There are drugs designed to cause a miscarriage and commonly called "abortion pills." That would be intentful.

But, say, a woman takes ibuprofen for a headache and it happens to have nasty side effects. That would not be intentful. (I don't know if ibuprofen can do this, but feel free to slot in nearly any other drug.)

Re: They Think It's Murder

#68
post #43

Let's grant for the sake of this argument and this alone that fertilization signals the beginning of all rights. You cannot be forced to donate a kidney to save someone else's life: they have no claim on your body. You cannot be forced to donate blood, for the same reason. You cannot be forced into surgery. You have the right to refuse medicine. And, in general, you have the right to ingest whatever substances you wa…

Someone else said it here, but in the US you can be forced to give up much more - the ultimate sacrifice - with selective service. So this, too, is a tough rub on logic

Where "you" means specifically males aged 18-25.

Coincidentally, 1973, the year Roe v. Wade was decided, was the last year anyone was drafted into the military.

Re: They Think It's Murder

#69
Persuading religious fundamentalists that their core ideology is fundamentally flawed by reasoned argument is about as likely of persuading Richard Dawkins and other New Atheists that their core ideology - their certainty about the nature of the universe - is similarly flawed.

Let's try, however. Questions about metaphysical notions, I'm afraid, cannot be addressed by the scientific method. Let's contemplate the simulation hypothesis, the notion that we live in a perfect virtual world running on some computational substrate 'somewhere else'. As it is a perfect simulation, no scientific test can reveal it to be a simulation, correct? Hence we cannot rule out a not-so-supernatural entity having built this simulation and turned it on (we could call that the Big Bang moment if we like). This philosophical notion can be extended to any religion on the planet, any fantasy story. All we can say to be logically consistent is that no one religion is any more supportable than another, from this viewpoint.

So, have we convinced the New Atheists to recant? I doubt it.

Now, as far as the abortion issue, to be diplomatic in these affairs we must seek common ground, and ignore the grinding of teeth and shouting on all sides. We should be able to agree that if the only time a woman became pregnant was by her deliberate choice to do so with the planned intention of raising a child, and there were no negative outcomes, like severe developmental defects that risked the life of the mother, then it would simply not be an issue, would it?

That's about as far as common ground goes, however. Personally I think the religious right are grotesque hypocrites as they refuse to back rational public health policy, quality childhood education for all, social support networks for children and mothers, or environmental policies that reduce exposure to teratogenic substances. They seem like blinkered religious fanatics and the notion that such people are susceptible to rational discussion is frankly ridiculous. These are the types of people who, if they had nuclear weapons, would likely set them off to achieve their fantasy of Armageddon and the Second Coming. The religious organizations they adhere to run brainwashing and mind control programs that target children, as a means of enforcing political and social control, and they've been at it for thousands of years. That's my view anyway.

Re: They Think It's Murder

#70

Science thinks life begins at fertilization too. https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.ht...

Looking through that collection of quotes, Ithink it would be more accurate to say "Science thinks development begins at fertilization." Which is true! Life is a polysemous concept - by many valid definitions the gametes are alive prior to fertilization. Whether the zygote represents an individual human life is a question that "Science" definitely does not hold a monolithic opinion on.

From 20 years working in a field proximal to developmental biology, my impression is that most individual scientists in relevant fields have a gradualist understanding of the emergence of individual life, involving key milestones such as implantation, gastrulation, neurulation, subsequent CNS development and "viability" (ability of the fetus to live independently of the mother's body).

Post reply on HN