Wrt drugs, they are correct. Wrt abortion, there is still a technical, scientific, question to be answered. When does sapience begin? Because "SAPIENT beings have the right to voluntary action".Diogenes wrote: A lot of people think that abortion and drug usage are philosophically the same. They have this slogan. "My body, my choice."
In both cases, they ignore the harm they cause others.
2010:warmest year ever since records began
Actually, now we get to another usurpation by the "lawyers" of language in their own interest. Natural Law is the way that the universe works. "Legislation" is an attempt to codify "natural law" wrt interpersonal relations. The fact that "legislation" has defined something in a particular way does not make it correct (right). The Pope defined (legislated) the universe in a certain way that Galeleo disagreed with. Galeleo broke the legislation to accurately describe the LAW. He was jailed for it. They did him wrong.Diogenes wrote: The "Law" is the officially defined morality. It is those list of things which are prohibited because the government says so.
It is quite amazing how lawyers have distorted the thought processes in our civilization by usurping the language; getting people to misunderstand, or confuse the words.
Jewish law holds that abortion before day 40 of gestation is discouraged but allowed. After that the health (including psychological) of the mother determines. And for purposes of law a growth inside the mother was not considered an independent person until 1/2 the head was outside the mother.KitemanSA wrote:Wrt drugs, they are correct. Wrt abortion, there is still a technical, scientific, question to be answered. When does sapience begin? Because "SAPIENT beings have the right to voluntary action".Diogenes wrote: A lot of people think that abortion and drug usage are philosophically the same. They have this slogan. "My body, my choice."
In both cases, they ignore the harm they cause others.
Now of course this conflicts with Catholic Law. And Protestants are all over the board. I'm not conversant with Islamic, Hindu, or other rules.
So is the "baby" the property of the mother or of the State?
I think the criteria should be independent action for personhood. All in all I think the rules laid down in Roe are a fair compromise and eliminate a medical black market.
That is why it is so hard to make law in this area. There is very little agreement as compared to murder, robbery, or theft.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
To the degree that she made the choice or continued in the condition WELL after the cellular stage, I would tend to agree with you.Diogenes wrote: I would charge the woman as an accessory. You don't want to be pregnant, don't make that choice!
But then I tend to be on the inclusive "better safe than sorry" end of the spectrum in deciding when sapience starts. My estimation is fairly early in the gestation process but I have absolutely no data to back me up.
Modern man has lost the option of silence. Try halting sub-vocal speech. Try to achieve even ten seconds of inner silence. You will encounter a resisting organism that forces you to talk. That organism is the word.
* The Ticket That Exploded (1962) WSB
Last edited by MSimon on Sun Aug 01, 2010 3:11 am, edited 1 time in total.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
Yup. But every once in a while I like to TRY to convince someone of the truth despite their faith. Besides, it helps hone my skills when I meet someone who is capable of reason. I've met a few. Very few.MSimon wrote:Kiteman,
I like to get my politics from engineers. Engineers are schooled in "What can possibly go wrong? In truth just about everything." While the general electorate dreams of "Laws? We just pass them and the words (and government guns) will give us what we are dreaming of." You can't bust that kind of thinking with reason. It is pure faith.
And I tell ya, the rewards are great.
This is about the time called "quickening" which seems a reasonable dividing line between "is not", and "is" sapient. It also seems a good place to say "beyond this point, you have had time to decide, so continuation shall be taken as constituting your agreement (volunteering) to carry the now sapient being to term".MSimon wrote:Jewish law holds that abortion before day 40 of gestation is discouraged but allowed.KitemanSA wrote:Wrt drugs, they are correct. Wrt abortion, there is still a technical, scientific, question to be answered. When does sapience begin? Because "SAPIENT beings have the right to voluntary action".Diogenes wrote: A lot of people think that abortion and drug usage are philosophically the same. They have this slogan. "My body, my choice."
In both cases, they ignore the harm they cause others.
As with any interpersonal relationship, a person can protect themselves from an aggressor, even to the point of killing the aggressor if it is to defend against imminent deadly threat.MSimon wrote:After that the health (including psychological) of the mother determines.
Well, that is one ancient definition. Not one I subscribe to but I have no data to deny it.MSimon wrote:And for purposes of law a growth inside the mother was not considered an independent person until 1/2 the head was outside the mother.
Could you clarify this for me? I could take this to be:MSimon wrote: I think the criteria should be independent action for personhood.
* First fetal motion, i.e. quickening (concur)
* First motion AFTER the umbilical cord is cut (way to late (IMHO)
* First action when moved out of the parent's home. Sorry, this is adulthood, not personhood.
By the way, just to clarify, I am using "personhood" to mean "sapience". If you mean differently, please clarify that too.
Personhood is a matter of law.
What are the odds that 8 1/2 month old little Johnny inside his mother is going to kick hard enough to injure some one? Nonexistent unless the mother gets close enough. Sapient? Yes. Person? No.
Once he gets on the outside little Johnny can kick you where it really hurts, bite your thumb, and the parents would still be responsible - depending. Why depending? Because little Johnny is an independent person with a free will.
What are the odds that 8 1/2 month old little Johnny inside his mother is going to kick hard enough to injure some one? Nonexistent unless the mother gets close enough. Sapient? Yes. Person? No.
Once he gets on the outside little Johnny can kick you where it really hurts, bite your thumb, and the parents would still be responsible - depending. Why depending? Because little Johnny is an independent person with a free will.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
A little anecdote re: sapience. I remember being in my mother and thinking "how cozy, but I have to get out ASAP, I have things to do". I was born 6 weeks premature. On the edge of life and death in those days (1944).
But in terms of law my story means nothing. That is decided on practical matters: i.e. spontaneous abortion, visibility, the state of medical science, religious pressure, secular pressure, etc.
The problem in essence is deciding when an acorn becomes a tree? There is no obvious hard dividing line. The beginning is definite. The end point is definite. The transition - not so definite.
But in terms of law my story means nothing. That is decided on practical matters: i.e. spontaneous abortion, visibility, the state of medical science, religious pressure, secular pressure, etc.
The problem in essence is deciding when an acorn becomes a tree? There is no obvious hard dividing line. The beginning is definite. The end point is definite. The transition - not so definite.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
Oh my word, you sound so libertarian in other situations. How you can turn so "legicrat" on me now is disturbing!MSimon wrote: Personhood is a matter of law.
I am talking here about "little Johnny" endangering the MOTHER so she terminates the pregnancy. Allows for moral abortion after the "sapience dividing line" (quickening?) but only with a "self defense" argument.MSimon wrote:What are the odds that 8 1/2 month old little Johnny inside his mother is going to kick hard enough to injure some one? Nonexistent unless the mother gets close enough.
If you seperate the two, then by your definition, personhood has no bearing on sapience, and thus no bearing on right and wrong. Corporations are legal "persons" too, but they have NO moral rights. Some would say they have too many legal priviledges.MSimon wrote:Sapient? Yes. Person? No.
Given that scenario, Johnny has also done something wrong. That is why responsible parents punish the wrong-doing (Speak crossly, pat on the tush, something of that nature, escalating as needed). Where they DON'T, they are doing Johnny and others wrong.MSimon wrote:Once he gets on the outside little Johnny can kick you where it really hurts, bite your thumb, and the parents would still be responsible - depending. Why depending? Because little Johnny is an independent person with a free will.
Last edited by KitemanSA on Sun Aug 01, 2010 2:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Needless anecdotes removedMSimon wrote: The problem in essence is deciding when an acorn becomes a tree? There is no obvious hard dividing line. The beginning is definite. The end point is definite. The transition - not so definite.
Yes you have identified the problem. There is a specific transition point (arrival of sapience) in the equation for moral abortion, but no accepted physical description of when that has occured. I have heard one person suggest quite honestly that he believed it was around seven years old so that killing a 6 year old should be legal post-partem abortion. Having just barely lived thru a 5 hour flight with a screaming 5 year old, I had a touch of sympathy for that position, but I don't actually subscribe to it. Nor do I subscribe to the ancient Jewish "head half out" position. I just can't state with knowledge that it is incorrect. I can state that if it is incorrect, then it is morally wrong too.
When there is knowledge but no objective test law is all you have. And as you point out there is no objective test for sapience.Oh my word, you sound so libertarian in other situations. How you can turn so "legicrat" on me now is disturbing!
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
The head half-out only confers personhood. i.e. you are not a legal person until your independence from your mother is reasonably assured.
In any case it is a murky business best left to the conscience of the mother and her attendants (nurses, doctors, midwives, etc.).
In any case it is a murky business best left to the conscience of the mother and her attendants (nurses, doctors, midwives, etc.).
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
Babies have no moral rights until they are independent of the mother. I'm satisfied with the Roe fudge though.
It is not enough to be sapient. Independence must also be satisfied. You are not an independent actor while you are carried (internally) by your mother. We fudge that with Roe to account somewhat for competing moral codes. Fine by me.
It is not enough to be sapient. Independence must also be satisfied. You are not an independent actor while you are carried (internally) by your mother. We fudge that with Roe to account somewhat for competing moral codes. Fine by me.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.