Dawkins and "The Great Tim Tebow Fallacy" (re: pro-life advertisement)

I am answering the question how it was framed, which is from unknowable standpoint. If no one knows how many pregnancies actually end in spontaneous abortion, including the one's who were pregnant, then no amount of modern science could yield accurate percentages. It's not a matter of incredulity, it's a matter of simple logic.Straggler stated that most pregnancies end up in the toilet, yet also stated that this routinely occurs unbeknownst to the women pregnant. Well, if no one ever knew they were pregnant then how can you also know how many pregnancies wind up in the toilet?That's a contradiction, not baseless incredulity. Logic therefore would dictate that an accurate figure could not be gleaned.Not that any of that straw man argument bears relevance to the debate.The question is whether or not abortion is wrong from a moral standpoint. Anything beyond that basic framework is a diversionary tactic. Edited by Hyroglyphx, : Edit to add

---

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

Statistical sampling. That's just the nature of statistics, though. It doesn't mean the result isn't worth anything.In Message 71 I liked to wiki where you could find the articles that show how htye found the statistic...

quote:

---

Fertilization and early pregnancy loss in healthy women attempting conception.
Smart YC, Fraser IS, Roberts TK, Clancy RL, Cripps AW.

​

The rosette inhibition test was used to monitor the activity of an early pregnancy factor (EPF) in sera collected from 18 healthy women who were attempting to conceive. Serial blood samples collected during the luteal phase of 21 menstrual cycles demonstrated the appearance of EPF in 14 of the cycles, of which six showed only transient EPF activity over a 5-10 day period following ovulation. These results indicate a 67% rate of fertilization and a 36% rate of early conceptus losses. source

---

Or if you really care, you can read this paper, it might have some more info for you: Physiology of implantationEdited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

I think they'd be open to it. Why not? But I don't think it would have any effect on their position because it doesn't have much to do with it. The life of those conseptuses are in god's hands, not thiers. They don't feel they should be deciding if it lives or dies. It doesn't matter how many undecidedly die, that's not a case for allowing for the decision to be made. They don't know or don't care. In terms of personhood, I think they'd see them as equivalent. Its that the life of the conceptuse isn't really in your hands yet. Well, on one side, the difference is simply a practicle one, in that its a lot harder to effect the person before they are born.But also, I think its more of stepping outside of our scope in the process of procreation. If god gives you a child, your not supposed to kill it.

Precisely. We determine that the killing of members of our tribe (either by accidental or intentional causes) is undesirable based on the value we place on the lives of those in our tribe. We can measure this value by looking at our attempts to preserve the life of those around us. Similarly, we can measure the value we place on the conceptus by our attempts to preserve it. This should then give us a basis for the morality surrounding the destriction or killing of a conceptus. Hopefully, now you see differently...Unless you use some divinely inspired "absolute" morality to determine that the killing of the conceptus is immoral?Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

YOU are putting in that frame so that YOU can claim it is unknowable. The statistic was raised as result of scientific observation. You wish to deny it, that is Incredulity by definition. Then why are you trying to dismiss it on the rediculous criteria that it is unknowable? Of course it is knowable. How it was "framed" is absolutly unimportant to the scientific fact that was presented. The only person creating a straw man here is you.

---

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson

Well the evidence says otherwise. Have you actually reached the point of denying evidence here?

quote:

---

A related issue that comes up in this debate is how often fertilization leads to an established, viable pregnancy. Current research suggests that fertilized embryos naturally fail to implant some 30% to 60% of the time.[28][29] Of those that do implant, about 25% are miscarried by the sixth week LMP (after the woman's Last Menstrual Period).[30] As a result, even without the use of birth control, between 50% and 70% of zygotes never result in established pregnancies, much less birth. Wiki Link 1:

---

quote:

---

Most miscarriages occur very early in pregnancy, in most cases, they occur so early in the pregnancy that the woman is not even aware that she was pregnant. One study testing hormones for ovulation and pregnancy found that 61.9% of conceptuses were lost prior to 12 weeks, and 91.7% of these losses occurred subclinically, without the knowledge of the once pregnant woman. Wiki Link 2

---

Oh please. You are the one claiming that all human conceptuses are "babies". If you honestly believe this then why do you not treat the "human life" that is a conceptus with the exact same concern that you would treat the human life that is a toddler?We don't just let toddlers die of natural causes without lifting a finger do we? "Oh it's OK because nobody actually killed them. Just dispose of my two year old son down the toilet and we'll try for another one later". Can you imagine? Yet is anyone seriously attempting to save the 50+ percent of "hamanity" that is unknowingly flushed down the toilet? No. Because nobody sane considers these clumps of mindless cells to be equivalent to a real baby. And even the pro-lifers only define conceptuses as "human" or "babies" when it suits their narrow moral cause. If I said 50+ percent of all babies are flushed down the toilet would you think that was a fair statement? A fair use of the term "baby"?Are conceptuses as human as a toddler? Or are some humans more human than others in your eyes?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

And yet how many would be so flippant about the natural death of their toddler? Once again emphasising that despite their "baby killer" assertions they no more consider conceptuses as equivalent to actual babies than I do. But simply letting it die is fine?

The only way statistical sampling would generate a credible percentage is if pregnancy is known in say a sample of 1,000 women and see how many miscarry.Straggler claimed that most miscarriages aren't even known, which of course is something that could not be known.

---

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

Yes, and this is really the only truly relevant part of the debate. It is kind of like looking at some ancient cultures using eugenics or discarding. Some cultures threw deformed babies off of cliffs. This is considered highly aberrant behavior today, because we ask ourselves, "who are we to decide the fate of a human being?" But others would argue that they are not only sparing the parents a lifetime of hardship, but also the child itself from having to live a tragically unfulfilled life full of pain and suffering because of their condition.One could make an ethical argument in either direction.It's the same with abortion. Both sides are making ethical decisions, both sides are doing what they honestly feel is best, both sides have the best of intentions, and yet both sides are completely opposite in the approach in how to be moral when it comes to unwanted pregnancy. No moral absolute can be ascertained, whether one uses it as justification or not. In the real world we each have to make an appeal relative to the better senses of those we are speaking to show our point of view and hope it is received and understood. Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.

---

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

I am challenging your methodology since no actual evidence is being represented. You are saying that most women who abort never know they were pregnant to begin with. It obviously is nonsensical to give any estimated figure without a baseline. If no one knows they're pregnant, then no baseline exists except where one is correlated through another medium. This is essentially tantamount to using weak evidence to make a probability judgment without taking into account known empirical statistics about the probability.

quote:

---

Give me a break here, Straggler. This is a slippery slope argument, a shamelessly pathetic one, that bears no relevance to the topic we are currently discussing.

---

For the last time, I do! If I don't stalk abortion clinics to force women to not have abortions, why would I try and find pregnant women, break in to their house, and search their menstruation for a conceptus?You understand that once a very young fetus leaves the body of its mother, no modern medicine can save that life. All we can do is continue to do research on how to mitigate miscarriages, right? Please tell me what you would have me do more than that being that there is jack shit that I could possibly do beyond that? Like with most anything else, reality dictates the outcome. A geriatric patient is just as human as 20-year old. I assume you would agree. Regardless that geriatric patient has less of a chance of living than the 20-year old due to no fault of anyone other than nature. While it doesn't diminish the tragedy of death, that is the reality whether we like it or not.The reality, however grim it may be, is that no one can survive outside of the womb in the early stages of gestation.That also just so happens has nothing to do whatsoever with abortion.You are just using this red herring as a distraction. Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.

---

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

But they don't consider them equivalent just they're both persons... They wouldn't consider a 90 y/o equivalent to a 1 y/o either. If there's nothing you can do about it.

What are you, a statistician? I don't think the necessary sample size required for a credible statistic is something I care to discuss. The point is that most fertilized eggs don't turn into people.Are you doubting that?

Straggler is claiming that they are not known to the woman.What you are trying to illegitimatly dismiss is the fact that they ARE known to science.People can (and have) performed studies on how often embryos implant into the uterus. This knowledge is essential for use in fertility treatments and is exactly why when you have in-vitro done they give multiple embryos a chance to implant.If we had done the science and discovered the opposite, that there is a 99% chance that an embryo will implant, then you can be damn sure that we would have a different approach to fertility treatment.That you are dismissing scientific facts as irrelevant is a staggering admission that your position is weak. That you have to resort to this tactic is incredibly revealing.

---

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson

Would you hold a funeral for a foetus?Does a man have a child support obligation to his "baby mama"? (in the event they sperate/the man is not in the picture) Can she file for child support before the child is born? Should she be able to?A woman is murdered one day after conception. Is it a double homicide?Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

---

Who are we? We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people
-Carl SaganFor me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
-Carl Sagan

What? Which part of the scientific evidence are you actualy disputing here? Well over 50% of conceptuses are naturally aborted without anyone ever even being aware that they existed. On what basis do you deny this fact? Who is talking about outside the womb? The reality is that well over 50% of babies (as you have defined them to be) are being flushed down the toilet before anyone is even aware of their existence. I am asking what you propose to do about this tragic loss of human life (as you have defined human life to be)?Your answer, apparently, is - NOTHING. You claimed that aborting conceptuses was the same as killing babies. I am asking you why letting conceptuses die is not the same as letting babies die. But you keep avoiding answering that question. Why? No. You are applying inconsistent thinking to what is a human life worthy of medical attention and effort and what is not.