(11-10-2012, 03:20 PM)kandrathe Wrote: I'm not basing the code of law on the laws of science. Science informs us of the truth of our observed reality. We base our laws, and our ethics on what we know to be true. The science of human biology informs us of what we know about human gestation. These are observable facts. Science informs us on the difference between living, and not living. Science informs us on what is human, and what is not human.
Science can answer specific, empirical questions. It can return an answer for any given definition of "human." But it cannot define "human."
We decide that. It does not tell us if a fetus at 8 months is human, or 4 months, or 1 month, or at the moment of conception. It doesn't tell us whether sperm and ova are human.
We can test for various things. Does it have DNA? Yes, but then, so do your skin cells. Does it react to stimuli? Yes, but so do sperm. Can it feel pain? Maybe, to varying degrees, but at what point does that matter, and at what point, not? Science can't answer these questions. Those are value judgements.
Quote:You don't see the disconnect in that a human, hours before delivery feels pain, but doesn't have the same protections you feel are afforded to animals in general.
I'm saying a fetus before delivery does have rights and protections, analogous to (though obviously not identical with) those we afford to animals. You cannot kill a fetus without the consent of the mother. You cannot harm it unnecessarily. You cannot be cruel to it. But it is not a citizen. A late-term abortion is not murder, in exactly the same sense that putting down a pet is not murder. That it is alive and feels pain does not mean it has full human rights. Those, I say, begin at birth - which, I might emphasize again, is NOT a conclusion emerging from science, but a value judgement.
Quote:We in fact have a way of defining harm against animals, or against people, or we do not? Can you tell me the difference between living or not living? Can you tell me the difference between human and not human?
Not without definitions for those things, and those definitions are value-laden. Nothing wrong with values, but they are inputs into science, not outputs from science.
Quote:What is the difference between this pre-birth baby a few hours before delivery, and the post-birth baby a few hours after delivery?
Birth.
Quote:Does it's position outside a womb really afford it humanity? When you say that it's not a human hours before delivery, it is contrary to my scientific, and logical mind.
Then there's something wrong with your scientific and logical mind, because those definitions are arbitrary. Logic can take you from your assumptions and definitions to valid conclusions, but it cannot determine your assumptions or your definitions. Science can test empirical claims, but it cannot determine what those claims are or should be. You can stick up for your definitions and values if you like, but they are not independently justified by science.
-Jester