And you guys thought *I* was nuts.

[Teahive]

Science only gives you a line. It doesn't make a moral statement about the position of that line. You can define other clear and consistent lines as well.

Please do. Define the line between life and death. Show us the science that supports your clearly defined line.

The question isn't life or death, but personhood. And it's a philosophical question, not a scientific one. Science will not answer it.

I do not care about all life on earth equally, and neither do you. But I defend every person's right to life. Obviously our definitions of personhood disagree, but I see no reason to adopt yours.

You see no reason to adopt your own. If you did, you would show it to me. You have adopted your own because it fit's your convenience, not because it is based on any other consideration. (such as biology.)

Funny, I've already shown it to you a while ago in another thread.

I mean personhood as the state of being a person in the eye of the law of a given society. It's not a biological issue but a social one. It requires society to accept the newcomer into their ranks. I think that introducing a child into society should be a conscious act by the parents and be accompanied with a pledge of support for the child. Someone else may step in and take over that role if the biological parents allow it.

My answer to that question would be: because she voluntarily and consciously made a pledge to the rest of society to take care of her child. But that obviously requires such a pledge to actually be made – conception is not sufficient.

If it did not occur voluntarily, you have a point. If it did occur voluntarily, then you do not.

As far as I'm aware conception isn't a conscious act unless you're from Hain. Though that would be a perfect solution to the conundrum. Maybe genetic engineering will get us there, wouldn't that be great?

Now if a couple had sex with the explicit goal of getting pregnant, then you can indeed argue that the pledge has implicitly been made. Proving it might be tricky, though.

[Skipjack]

No, not in theory, but in actual practice. That different places have different laws is irrelevant to the point. Whatever their different laws, they all have some point at which they recognize a child may no longer be killed.

Ok, so if the laws are different in different countries, how can you not call it a grey area?
You are contradicting yourself here.
One can see a pretty clear development of the brain. If the brain is not more developed than that of a fly, then the embryo is clearly not there yet. It all becomes less clear the further development is along. I think that the 3 months limit that we have here is a fair one, all things taken into account.
If the life of the mother is in danger, the situation is different all together anyway.

[Diogenes]

Science only gives you a line. It doesn't make a moral statement about the position of that line. You can define other clear and consistent lines as well.

Please do. Define the line between life and death. Show us the science that supports your clearly defined line.

The question isn't life or death, but personhood. And it's a philosophical question, not a scientific one. Science will not answer it.

And you apparently won't answer it either. You said "You can define other clear and consistent lines as well."

You are hand waving the question away, and refusing to answer it. WHERE are there other clear and consistent lines?

I do not care about all life on earth equally, and neither do you. But I defend every person's right to life. Obviously our definitions of personhood disagree, but I see no reason to adopt yours.

You see no reason to adopt your own. If you did, you would show it to me. You have adopted your own because it fit's your convenience, not because it is based on any other consideration. (such as biology.)

Funny, I've already shown it to you a while ago in another thread.

You stated that it is a "social opinion" not a biological one.

I mean personhood as the state of being a person in the eye of the law of a given society. It's not a biological issue but a social one.

Were I to take you at your word, then you would have to accept that if the status of our law regarding personhood ought to be based on the social opinion of the consensus, Killing a child after it is born (as did the Spartans and the Romans) as well as slavery is fully justified.

What you are saying is that if society is accepting of slavery, than so are you. I suppose that is one way of looking at it, and it is rather refreshingly honest. (Brutal, but honest.)


I would suggest that society would be better off basing it's laws not on the transitory whims of the people, but on clearly defined criteria based on logic and science. Your thinking is how the Holocaust began. After all, if "personhood" is defined by consensus, then all you have to do is redefine it.

I mean personhood as the state of being a person in the eye of the law of a given society. It's not a biological issue but a social one. It requires society to accept the newcomer into their ranks. I think that introducing a child into society should be a conscious act by the parents and be accompanied with a pledge of support for the child. Someone else may step in and take over that role if the biological parents allow it.

In a primitive tribe it is a social issue. In an advanced civilization, it is not. The criteria for defining a person ought be exactly like the criteria for defining a citizen. Exact, and not subject to whim.

My answer to that question would be: because she voluntarily and consciously made a pledge to the rest of society to take care of her child. But that obviously requires such a pledge to actually be made – conception is not sufficient.

If it did not occur voluntarily, you have a point. If it did occur voluntarily, then you do not.

As far as I'm aware conception isn't a conscious act unless you're from Hain. Though that would be a perfect solution to the conundrum. Maybe genetic engineering will get us there, wouldn't that be great?

What utter nonsense! There are few people indeed that are unaware that conception is a consequence of having sex, and anyone so stupid as to not take precautions is very much committing a deliberate act in the sense that their activity has a very high probability of resulting in a conception.

Merely firing a gun into the air has a low probability of hitting someone, but it is still forbidden on the basis that it might. Firing a gun into a vagina ought to require at least the same degree of consideration.

Stupid is no excuse. Adults should not behave as irresponsibly as children.

Now if a couple had sex with the explicit goal of getting pregnant, then you can indeed argue that the pledge has implicitly been made. Proving it might be tricky, though.

The likelihood of conception is such a certainty that the onus of non-intent falls the other way. By NOT taking precautions you are expressing an intent, whether it be reckless or not.

Lighting a fire in a Dry grassland has a high probability of spreading uncontrollably. No one would accept the argument that a person with ordinary knowledge "didn't intend to let it get out of control."


Stop trying to justify childish and reckless behavior.

[Diogenes]

No, not in theory, but in actual practice. That different places have different laws is irrelevant to the point. Whatever their different laws, they all have some point at which they recognize a child may no longer be killed.

Ok, so if the laws are different in different countries, how can you not call it a grey area?
You are contradicting yourself here.

What I am doing is beating my head against a wall. You are obviously not comprehending what I wrote. Whatever the law, whatever the country, at the point where THAT law or THAT country decide a human is a person entitled to the protection of the law, then hat is when the decision is black and white. First it was unprotected, the next microsecond it is protected.

It undergoes a transition phase change from "non-person" to "person." It does not do so gradually, it does it in an infinitesimally small point in time. The law doesn't have a graduated scale. It is all or nothing. Black or White.

Since the LAW (Regardless of what law or what country) is black and white, so ought the definition be black and white. Ambiguity serves no purpose in either law or science.

One can see a pretty clear development of the brain. If the brain is not more developed than that of a fly, then the embryo is clearly not there yet.

If the brain function is no more than that of a fly, does this make it okay to kill anyone fitting the criteria? Such a thing would certainly clear out the human vegetables currently residing in various state homes.

But let us apply your idea for a moment. Let us assume that during a zygote's development that it can be defined as a non-person prior to brain development.

Suppose I give a woman an Abortifacients which kills her child, but renders no harm to her. Can I, or should I be punished for doing such a thing?

Suppose we flood the cities with chemicals which produce this same effect? Killing all of those non-person's could hardly be considered a crime, right?

Should our laws work this way?

It all becomes less clear the further development is along. I think that the 3 months limit that we have here is a fair one, all things taken into account.

Based on what? That it is 9 divided by 3? That it's a nice round number? What is the basis for it other than someone thought it seemed convenient for their purpose?

If the life of the mother is in danger, the situation is different all together anyway.

Absolutely. Then it becomes a medical condition.

[tomclarke]

What I am doing is beating my head against a wall. You are obviously not comprehending what I wrote. Whatever the law, whatever the country, at the point where THAT law or THAT country decide a human is a person entitled to the protection of the law, then hat is when the decision is black and white. First it was unprotected, the next microsecond it is protected.

It undergoes a transition phase change from "non-person" to "person." It does not do so gradually, it does it in an infinitesimally small point in time. The law doesn't have a graduated scale. It is all or nothing. Black or White.

That is not true. The law in most countries treats killing a foetus as different from killing a person. The UK lawalso treats mothers killing small babies differently from other homicide. There is no reson for such a black and white distinction: neither legally nor morally.

Since the LAW (Regardless of what law or what country) is black and white, so ought the definition be black and white. Ambiguity serves no purpose in either law or science.

Your argument is that morality should follow law, which is black and white.
The law is not black and white. But if it were, why should that be right?

You then say that ambiguity has no place in law or science.

Why are real numbers, rather than truth values, ambiguous? A shade of grey is as real a color as is black and whilte.

Science could not work without continuous distinctions: e.g. genetic similarity between two people. Nor could the law. Not all robberies are identically bad. Not all killings are identically bad.

[Skipjack]

What I am doing is beating my head against a wall. You are obviously not comprehending what I wrote. Whatever the law, whatever the country, at the point where THAT law or THAT country decide a human is a person entitled to the protection of the law, then hat is when the decision is black and white. First it was unprotected, the next microsecond it is protected.

Ok, I talk about moral grey area, you talk about law. I guess you were not comprehending what I meant earlier.

If the brain function is no more than that of a fly, does this make it okay to kill anyone fitting the criteria? Such a thing would certainly clear out the human vegetables currently residing in various state homes.

Again depending on the country, there are very different legal views on the matter. So there is also a moral grey zone. It certainly is a difficult question. I sure would not want to live as a vegetable, more valuable as an organ donor, IMHO.

Suppose I give a woman an Abortifacients which kills her child, but renders no harm to her. Can I, or should I be punished for doing such a thing?

Suppose we flood the cities with chemicals which produce this same effect? Killing all of those non-person's could hardly be considered a crime, right?

Should our laws work this way?

Well they already do, actually. I would certainly call for a punishment since it is still performing an unwanted medical procedure that caused psychological harm to the mothers. It would certainly not count as murder though.

Sa truth is that 25% of all embryos dont make it past 12 weeks anyway. We lost our first child in the 10th week. It is perfectly normal and can have many reasons. Some just dont turn out right and nature self regulate, others die due to some environmental effect. Sure we were heartbroken at the time (especialy since it was just one in a series of many, even worse missfortunes), but our next try gave us our son, who is just perfect.
I certainly dont feel like an actual person died, though.
We also did the combined test when our son was coming. I am glad he turned out to be healthy and perfect, but I know that my wife and I would have had to make some tough decisions had the test turned out badly.

[Skipjack]

What I am doing is beating my head against a wall. You are obviously not comprehending what I wrote. Whatever the law, whatever the country, at the point where THAT law or THAT country decide a human is a person entitled to the protection of the law, then hat is when the decision is black and white. First it was unprotected, the next microsecond it is protected.

Ok, I talk about moral grey area, you talk about law. I guess you were not comprehending what I meant earlier.

If the brain function is no more than that of a fly, does this make it okay to kill anyone fitting the criteria? Such a thing would certainly clear out the human vegetables currently residing in various state homes.

Again depending on the country, there are very different legal views on the matter. So there is also a moral grey zone. It certainly is a difficult question. I sure would not want to live as a vegetable, more valuable as an organ donor, IMHO.

Suppose I give a woman an Abortifacients which kills her child, but renders no harm to her. Can I, or should I be punished for doing such a thing?

Suppose we flood the cities with chemicals which produce this same effect? Killing all of those non-person's could hardly be considered a crime, right?

Should our laws work this way?

Well they already do, actually. I would certainly call for a punishment since it is still performing an unwanted medical procedure that caused psychological harm to the mothers. It would certainly not count as murder though.

Sa truth is that 25% of all embryos dont make it past 12 weeks anyway. We lost our first child in the 10th week. It is perfectly normal and can have many reasons. Some just dont turn out right and nature self regulate, others die due to some environmental effect. Sure we were heartbroken at the time (especialy since it was just one in a series of many, even worse missfortunes), but our next try gave us our son, who is just perfect.
I certainly dont feel like an actual person died, though.
We also did the combined test when our son was coming. I am glad he turned out to be healthy and perfect, but I know that my wife and I would have had to make some tough decisions had the test turned out badly.

[Teahive]

I would suggest that society would be better off basing it's laws not on the transitory whims of the people, but on clearly defined criteria based on logic and science. Your thinking is how the Holocaust began. After all, if "personhood" is defined by consensus, then all you have to do is redefine it.

Even if it were defined by science, all you'd have to to is redefine it. There's no magical lock you can put on a definition to protect it.

And there's no absolute morality you could base laws on.

I mean personhood as the state of being a person in the eye of the law of a given society. It's not a biological issue but a social one. It requires society to accept the newcomer into their ranks. I think that introducing a child into society should be a conscious act by the parents and be accompanied with a pledge of support for the child. Someone else may step in and take over that role if the biological parents allow it.

In a primitive tribe it is a social issue. In an advanced civilization, it is not. The criteria for defining a person ought be exactly like the criteria for defining a citizen. Exact, and not subject to whim.

Exact it is. A simple yes/no question. Answered by a person, though, not by scientific experiment.

What utter nonsense! There are few people indeed that are unaware that conception is a consequence of having sex, and anyone so stupid as to not take precautions is very much committing a deliberate act in the sense that their activity has a very high probability of resulting in a conception.

I wouldn't call it "very high". Anyway, why do you assume pregnancy equals not taking precautions?

[KitemanSA]

You're being too subtle for me. What I was getting at is that too often people forget their human biases. They anthropomorphize the 'system of the world'. We can't get off this planet soon enough.

Which is why I generally say the generic "people" or the specific "sapient beings" and only talk the anthropocentric "human" when it has already been brought up in the conversation.

[KitemanSA]

Y'all are talking past each other. You don't even agree on the definitions of the words you are using. How can you hope to reach any kind of understanding.

The sky is blue!
No it isn't the sea is azure!

[Diogenes]

What I am doing is beating my head against a wall. You are obviously not comprehending what I wrote. Whatever the law, whatever the country, at the point where THAT law or THAT country decide a human is a person entitled to the protection of the law, then hat is when the decision is black and white. First it was unprotected, the next microsecond it is protected.

It undergoes a transition phase change from "non-person" to "person." It does not do so gradually, it does it in an infinitesimally small point in time. The law doesn't have a graduated scale. It is all or nothing. Black or White.

That is not true. The law in most countries treats killing a foetus as different from killing a person. The UK lawalso treats mothers killing small babies differently from other homicide. There is no reson for such a black and white distinction: neither legally nor morally.

At some point the law says a child is protected, or do the laws of England never say such? Are you even now as an adult, in danger of being aborted?

Since the LAW (Regardless of what law or what country) is black and white, so ought the definition be black and white. Ambiguity serves no purpose in either law or science.

Your argument is that morality should follow law, which is black and white.
The law is not black and white. But if it were, why should that be right?

The law *IS* black and white, (You are just quibbling about WHEN the law makes a decision) and no, morality shouldn't follow the law, (the converse, in fact) but the law SHOULD follow logic and science.

You then say that ambiguity has no place in law or science.

Correct. Ambiguity serves no good purpose in law or science.

Why are real numbers, rather than truth values, ambiguous? A shade of grey is as real a color as is black and whilte.

"Black and White" is just a metaphor for the concept of a phase transition. Such occurs in the law, but does not occur in the biology. (except at conception.) It is the law which is subjective and inconsistent.

Science could not work without continuous distinctions: e.g. genetic similarity between two people. Nor could the law. Not all robberies are identically bad. Not all killings are identically bad.

The law man vary the consequences for "less bad" robberies, but the classification of the offense is still the same. In that sense, it either is, or is not a "robbery."

[Diogenes]

What I am doing is beating my head against a wall. You are obviously not comprehending what I wrote. Whatever the law, whatever the country, at the point where THAT law or THAT country decide a human is a person entitled to the protection of the law, then hat is when the decision is black and white. First it was unprotected, the next microsecond it is protected.

Ok, I talk about moral grey area, you talk about law. I guess you were not comprehending what I meant earlier.

It only appears to be gray for those who want to see it that way. It is clearly not gray by any standards of logic or science. In any case, we must live in a world where the law applies as a defacto black and white boundary.

If the brain function is no more than that of a fly, does this make it okay to kill anyone fitting the criteria? Such a thing would certainly clear out the human vegetables currently residing in various state homes.

Again depending on the country, there are very different legal views on the matter. So there is also a moral grey zone. It certainly is a difficult question. I sure would not want to live as a vegetable, more valuable as an organ donor, IMHO.

Suppose I give a woman an Abortifacients which kills her child, but renders no harm to her. Can I, or should I be punished for doing such a thing?

Suppose we flood the cities with chemicals which produce this same effect? Killing all of those non-person's could hardly be considered a crime, right?

Should our laws work this way?

Well they already do, actually.

That is beside the point. The "Law" used to allow Slavery, and the execution of homosexuals, It is a given that the law can be wrong from time to time, the question is SHOULD the law work this way?

My answer is a resounding "NO!" The law should be simple, clear cut, and based on logic and the findings of science.

I would certainly call for a punishment since it is still performing an unwanted medical procedure that caused psychological harm to the mothers. It would certainly not count as murder though.

It causes no more psychological harm than does an abortion. It causes none at all if the woman isn't even aware she's pregnant. (Which is usually the case until the first missed period.)


A nation could be wiped out if conception was prevented. At some point, (as with drugs) ubiquity makes it an issue of national security. (existential.)

Sa truth is that 25% of all embryos dont make it past 12 weeks anyway. We lost our first child in the 10th week. It is perfectly normal and can have many reasons. Some just dont turn out right and nature self regulate, others die due to some environmental effect. Sure we were heartbroken at the time (especialy since it was just one in a series of many, even worse missfortunes), but our next try gave us our son, who is just perfect.
I certainly dont feel like an actual person died, though.

If you didn't regard the children who died as person's, why be heartbroken? If it is just tissue, then it is no more than just a heavy flow period, which is obviously nothing to feel sadness over.

Methinks your behavior belies your words. In your heart you know the truth. Now if we could only convince your brain to see the reality of it...

We also did the combined test when our son was coming. I am glad he turned out to be healthy and perfect, but I know that my wife and I would have had to make some tough decisions had the test turned out badly.

Indeed.

[Diogenes]

I would suggest that society would be better off basing it's laws not on the transitory whims of the people, but on clearly defined criteria based on logic and science. Your thinking is how the Holocaust began. After all, if "personhood" is defined by consensus, then all you have to do is redefine it.

Even if it were defined by science, all you'd have to to is redefine it. There's no magical lock you can put on a definition to protect it. .

There is no "lock" to prevent stupidity, but it can certainly be reduced. As with nation's boundaries often following natural boundaries such as a coast line or a river, it is possible to induce a resting place for laws when they are based on clear cut and clearly reasoned dividing lines.

There is nothing in current law resembling a clear line. It is RIFE with contradiction and assumption. For example, men have been charged with murder for the death of an unborn child, but a woman can kill it on her whim. It is a Schrödinger Cat dichotomy. The baby is both a person and "non person" at the same time, depending on who is doing the killing.

Another example is legal responsibility. A woman can kill the child and forgo any future responsibility, but a man will be forced to pay for a child he doesn't want whether he likes it or not. If the law was being consistent, a man could "abort" his legal responsibility in the same manner that the woman can abort hers.

And there's no absolute morality you could base laws on.

I disagree. It is my belief that a Universal morality exists and can be objectively defined. Evolution, in fact, has created such a thing, and it is normally imparted by instinct. We have just yet to recognize and codify it completely.

Some aspects are obvious. "Thou shalt not Murder", "Though shalt not steal", "Thou shalt not bear false witness", etc.

As it is contrary to the passing on of genes from members of a species which kills it's offspring, evolution will eventually correct this problem, and thereby once again assert a Universal morality.

I mean personhood as the state of being a person in the eye of the law of a given society. It's not a biological issue but a social one. It requires society to accept the newcomer into their ranks. I think that introducing a child into society should be a conscious act by the parents and be accompanied with a pledge of support for the child. Someone else may step in and take over that role if the biological parents allow it.

In a primitive tribe it is a social issue. In an advanced civilization, it is not. The criteria for defining a person ought be exactly like the criteria for defining a citizen. Exact, and not subject to whim.

Exact it is. A simple yes/no question. Answered by a person, though, not by scientific experiment.

Subjective laws defined by subjective opinion are not a good basis for justice or stability. The founders believed in "natural law" and employed it in the construction of our nation's government. Where we have deviated from it there have been consequences that have proven to be severe. (Slavery/Civil war)

Again, laws should follow natural boundaries because once established they have a natural resting place and are not so easily moved by whim.

What utter nonsense! There are few people indeed that are unaware that conception is a consequence of having sex, and anyone so stupid as to not take precautions is very much committing a deliberate act in the sense that their activity has a very high probability of resulting in a conception.

I wouldn't call it "very high". Anyway, why do you assume pregnancy equals not taking precautions?

One would think anyone growing up on planet earth would be aware of the endless examples of previous unwanted pregnancies. With 42 million abortions per year, one would think no further examples or proof ought be necessary.

[tomclarke]

What I am doing is beating my head against a wall. You are obviously not comprehending what I wrote. Whatever the law, whatever the country, at the point where THAT law or THAT country decide a human is a person entitled to the protection of the law, then hat is when the decision is black and white. First it was unprotected, the next microsecond it is protected.

It undergoes a transition phase change from "non-person" to "person." It does not do so gradually, it does it in an infinitesimally small point in time. The law doesn't have a graduated scale. It is all or nothing. Black or White.

That is not true. The law in most countries treats killing a foetus as different from killing a person. The UK lawalso treats mothers killing small babies differently from other homicide. There is no reson for such a black and white distinction: neither legally nor morally.

At some point the law says a child is protected, or do the laws of England never say such? Are you even now as an adult, in danger of being aborted?

Indeed children are protected. but the level of protection varies with the age of the foetus, and even in specific cases the age of the child. Not black and white.

Since the LAW (Regardless of what law or what country) is black and white, so ought the definition be black and white. Ambiguity serves no purpose in either law or science.

Your argument is that morality should follow law, which is black and white.
The law is not black and white. But if it were, why should that be right?

The law *IS* black and white, (You are just quibbling about WHEN the law makes a decision) and no, morality shouldn't follow the law, (the converse, in fact) but the law SHOULD follow logic and science.

The law is only black and white in that specific offences are defined which have boundaries. the variability of life is handled by allowing different sentencing within those offences. Even then the black and white nature of the law can lead to bad justice - as when in this country somone who helps a loved partner who wants to die can be accused and found guilty of murder.

So although the law should follow moraity, and generally does not do a bad job, it can fail, especially when there are difficult cases which fall on boundaries.

You then say that ambiguity has no place in law or science.

Correct. Ambiguity serves no good purpose in law or science.

I agree, with the reservation that since even in maths ambiguity is a proven result of any axiomatic system complex enough to include arithmetic (the Peano axioms), it is going to be impossible to avoid it occasionally.

Why are real numbers, rather than truth values, ambiguous? A shade of grey is as real a color as is black and whilte.

"Black and White" is just a metaphor for the concept of a phase transition. Such occurs in the law, but does not occur in the biology. (except at conception.) It is the law which is subjective and inconsistent.

Science could not work without continuous distinctions: e.g. genetic similarity between two people. Nor could the law. Not all robberies are identically bad. Not all killings are identically bad.

The law man vary the consequences for "less bad" robberies, but the classification of the offense is still the same. In that sense, it either is, or is not a "robbery."

Right, but because lawyers like to put a label on something does not mean it is the label.

[CKay]

Like it or not ambiguity is a seemingly unavoidable facet of our experience of reality - it's inherent to science (the measurement problem, wave-particle duality), maths (Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem) and philosophy (the full works).

Those who think that they can use science to build an indubitable case for their preferred system of morality, whether that be libertarianism or the essential personage of a human zygote, are making a fundamental error.

All systems of morality are based upon assumptions.