iPOW #01

[Sexy_fork]

I tend to try to stay away from such topics, but felt the need to briefly interject:

first and foremost, the definition of a 'therapeutic abortion':

...the termination of pregnancy before fetal viability...

from this article: http://www.emedicine.com/med/topic3311.htm

with that in mind, consider this: for the first 20 weeks or so of gestation, a fetus has a 0% survival rate outside the womb. since most therapeutic abortions occur during this time, is it really murder to terminate a pregnancy if the fetus couldn't survive on its own anyways?

I know, I know - if it stayed in the womb and gestation continued, it would grow into a fetus capable of surviving outside the womb. the 50-50 survival chance occurs at about 28 weeks.

my personal opinion on therapeutic abortions is that I don't care what you do with your womb and your baby. I'd only get an abortion if mine or my child's life was at serious risk, and even then only as a last resort. but then again, I love kids and plan to have several.

but I also believe that while the male partner has every responsibility to the mother and the child, if it comes down to it, it's her womb.

[Lesotheron]

I could use more carriage returns, but it's a writing style choice that is made more for personal aesthetic than ease of use.

Wait... Do I understand that correctly to say you prefer huge solid blocks of text to more standard paragraphs?

Actually, yeah. At least in message boards. It makes it easier to organize my thoughts. When I'm typing, each block of text is devoted to one particular thing (be it a thought, point, argument), when I use a carriage return, I'm talking about something different. It's not the standard definition of a paragraph, but this isn't exactly a college thesis or literature.

*SNIP*

One part of the problem is we're dealing with a subject that science and language isn't fully prepared to deal with yet. Laws vary on terminology from "person" to "human" to "human being" to "being"... We still struggle with the concepts of consciousness, sentience, agency, entity, and being.

That may be, but just because a fact might be proven incorrect in the future, doesn't mean that it will be. As of now, these are the facts we have at hand, so these are the facts I base my opinions off of. If you can't believe a fact based on the premise that it might be changed, you can't really believe anything. For now, it is theory, speculation and opinion to say that a fetus isn't a child because we don't have a way to prove it.

*SNIP*

All these "accepted definitions" are born of eons of primitive and flawed ideas of how life works and what life is... And, even though, as you point out, you may not have used superstition as a direct point of argument, almost all of the definitions in almost all of these sources are based on thousands of years of superstition.

Not necessarily, the definitions came about before the science was available, but since science has only been able to reinforce the definitions (completely independantly from the superstition that may or may not have created them), instead of disproving them, so far, it is still fact and therefore, still the valid definition.

Whatever. I'm tired. An unborn child fetus llama whatever simply doesn't have that... Je ne sais quoi. They are not a person. They have no consciousness... No agency. No entity.

Well, we don't have any proof whether or not a fetus has consciousness. As you said, we don't have a way of even clearly defining consciousness, we're still struggling with the "concept" of consciousness.

As a slightly humourous aside, I'd like to see someone try to qualify or quantify "Je ne se quoi" for use in scientific study.

Bob: Well, you see, this galaxy has a certain amount of Je ne se quoi, I think it might be a new type of galaxy.

Steve: What is Je ne se quoi?

Bob: It's a French phrase, it means a "certain something"

Steve: So, what is that "certain something"?

Bob: I don't know, it's just "something".

Steve: Can we prove this "something"?

Bob: I don't know, I don't even know if I can identify this "something".

Steve: Hmmm, let's point it out to every modern religion. They don't care about facts. We'll tell the Jews, Catholics and Christians that it's Heaven, and they'll actually believe it. We'll the the Muslims it's Jannah. We'll tell anyone else it's whatever they want it to be. I can't wait to see the mass exodus of people trying to get there by spaceship.

I realize you say you've posted the "scientific proof" that this is not so, and to be honest, I simply haven't read it. Between the giant impenetrable blocks of text, and the fact that I'm simply not reading most of LTG's posts, replies to him, or anyone else who's frankly being a boorish embarrassment to my side of the debate, means that I may have missed some citations, and I apologise... If you want to re-provide some links or concise arguments, I'll certainly consider them, but, quite frankly, it's outside the scope of my interest.

Scientific fact states that a human fetus has the exact same genetic properties as a full-grown human being (you can check wikipedia for a detailed description of DNA, with references to other texts, here, which explains how DNA defines the genetic properties of an organism. I know wikipedia can be edited by anyone, but it provides 142 links to references and 21 links to other sources that can't be edited, so if you don't believe something, you can at least verify it). Science has also proven that a fetus' genetic composition does not change as it matures (i.e. it does not take on any genetic properties of say, a dog. Any book on pregnancy or human development can explain this). This proves that a fetus is the same biological entity that any other human being is, and that it is a human being at an earlier stage of development.

It is also scientific fact that an embryo becomes a fetus when it has the same structural composition as a full-grown human being, all of its major organs and structures are in place (hopefully the right places), and once those organs and sturctures mature, the fetus will be ready for life outside of the womb (standard definition should be sufficient for this since science is what defined it). When it is at that point, it is considered a viable fetus (once again, science defines it this way, so the definition should be sufficient). Once a fetus becomes viable, it can be removed from the womb and be fully recognized as a human being, even if it hasn't reached full-term (this doesn't need a reference, this is what a caesarean section birth is. That's why I said there's no such thing as a legal late-term abortion, at that point, it's legally defined as a birth).

I can provide more links to these facts, but if you know any fifth or sixth graders, you can just borrow their science textbooks (provided that the school they attend actually has the money to buy textbooks, which is an argument I'm not getting into right now). It'll be the same information. But if you don't, I'll provide the links (once I dig through all of the pro-life and pro-choice "opinions" on the matter), It could take me a day or two.

In other words, I don't care that much. It's not a field I need to read every paper in... I can comfortably roll with the scientific consensus on this one. The answers are just that obvious. An unborn fetus is part of the being of the host mother. Hell, our sentimental pretense to the contrary notwithstanding, even an infant below a certain threshold of intellectual development isn't an individual sentient being, any more than a halfway decent dog is.

It is not part of the host mother, it is a separate entity that resides within the host mother and is connected to her with an umbilical cord. LeftTentacleGreen actually agrees with me on that one by stating that a fetus could be considered a "parasite" because it is separate, yet connected to (and dependant on) its host (like in the example I made of a tapeworm).

Science doesn't need to prove this one, logic can, but science has anyway. If a fetus were a part of the host mother, like say, a woman's kidney or even one of her eggs, it wouldn't be able to "magically transform" into a separate being once it got old enough (although fungi can do this, it is not scientifically possible for a human to do). Not to mention the fact that if it was part of a woman's body, it would have the exact same DNA code as any other part of her would. It doesn't. It has it's own DNA code that is made up of 50% of the mother's DNA and 50% of the father's DNA.

On this point, I could provide links to these facts, but even an episode of Law and Order can explain how different individuals have different DNA (seeing as how they manage to bring it up in almost every episode). It may be a fictional show, but it constantly references the legal and medical facts involved. But if you don't want to enjoy the show, any law book can explain that DNA can be used to legally identify a person. If DNA can't prove that a fetus is separate from it's mother, how can we legally use it to identify people?

But the simple fact remains. If the majority consensus of the scientific / medical community believed that a fetus had entity and agency, abortion would be illegal in most 'enlightened' countries.

Science has proven that a fetus has entity, but agency is more of a philosophical and legal concept, therefore much harder to prove.

But none of this is even a valid reason to argue for making abortion illegal. An "enlightened" society would be able to understand the fact that a child shouldn't be brought into the world just because its parents weren't able to prevent it from happening. If a couple can legally do everything that is medically possible to prevent conception from occuring, why should they be forced to continue a pregnancy that resulted when those protective measures fail. Abortion is another form of birth-control that should be used only when all other forms have failed (or in cases where birth-control wasn't available, like rape).

[Lesotheron]

I tend to try to stay away from such topics, but felt the need to briefly interject:

first and foremost, the definition of a 'therapeutic abortion':

...the termination of pregnancy before fetal viability...

from this article: http://www.emedicine.com/med/topic3311.htm

with that in mind, consider this: for the first 20 weeks or so of gestation, a fetus has a 0% survival rate outside the womb. since most therapeutic abortions occur during this time, is it really murder to terminate a pregnancy if the fetus couldn't survive on its own anyways?

I know, I know - if it stayed in the womb and gestation continued, it would grow into a fetus capable of surviving outside the womb. the 50-50 survival chance occurs at about 28 weeks.

my personal opinion on therapeutic abortions is that I don't care what you do with your womb and your baby. I'd only get an abortion if mine or my child's life was at serious risk, and even then only as a last resort. but then again, I love kids and plan to have several.

but I also believe that while the male partner has every responsibility to the mother and the child, if it comes down to it, it's her womb.

Excellent points! They support the pro-choice side of the issue, are solidly based on fact and, since it doesn't contradict anything I believe, I can't even argue it. Most importantly, one doesn't even need to argue whether or not a fetus is a child to be able to accept this point of view. I believe a fetus is a child, I have provided evidence that a fetus is a child, yet this says that whether or not a fetus is a child is irrelevant.

However, if you don't mind, can you clarify what you mean when you say that the male partner has every responsibility to the mother and child? If you're saying what I think you're saying, I might be able to argue with you about that, if you wanted to of course.

In either case, allow me to say: Welcome to the discussion.

On an aside: Do you think I'm a bad person for thinking lurid thoughts and drooling slightly at your avatar?

[Honor]

Steve: What is Je ne se quoi?

Bob: It's a French phrase, it means a "certain something"

Um... Close, Bob. It means "I don't know what." Which is why the standard usage in English is "a certain je ne sais quoi."... That certain... I don't know what.

Which fetuses don't have. Not based on the idea that we just can[t prove a damned thing now, but they might be proven not to have it in the future, but rather based on the obvious evidence available now that they don't have it, and the fact that the default assumption is not the least likely one in the deck.


Thank you for providing a short version of the "scientific evidence"... I seem to have been confused as to what it "proved".

Of course (at least, I would hope it would be obvious by now) I actually don't need a primer on what this weird "DNA" stuff is, or what little fetuses are made of. (sugar and spice, with a roughly 49% chance of turning into snips and snails and puppydog tails, if I remember correctly).

Problem is, all this stuff proves that fetuses are of humans... Not that they are persons.

Genetic makeup and biological architecture are not semantically equal to consciousness or "personhood"... Proving a fetus has these rudimentary structural things does nothing to prove that fetus is a person. It's, once more, an argument based more in emotion and superstition than in scientific criteria and fact.

"Personhood" is not a factor of genetic makeup... If we were to encounter beings from another world, no serious and credible person would argue to deny them individual rights based on genetic difference. If another sentient species were discovered here, or if a "person" were born with notably different genetics... Same story.

"Personhood" is not based on architectural structure and design... People born with... substantial structural differences from other humans are still "persons"... if they are born, survive to consciousness, and develop a sense of self or 'sentience'.


"Personhood" is, however, predicated on that consciousness... Not in a fleeting sense, of course - I trust you won't rebut with "What about people who are asleep?" - but rather on an existential level.

You say at one point in your response that we don't know whether they're conscious, because we don't know what consciousness is. "Still struggling with the concept" isn't the same as "cluelessness". The little fucker's brain isn't even fully formed yet. Let alone developed and molded to the extent that will give it conscious self-awareness. It's tabula rasa... While it's an intentional mixture of metaphor, It's a smooth slate, so to speak.

Even though we have a legal fiction to protect the potential "person" once it's born, even the hypothetical infant I keep referencing isn't a "person" yet. Neural pathways must be blazed and regularized... Experience is the catalyst for the development that transforms us from clever animals into sentient persons. The unborn fetus hasn't got it. It's a vessel. A blank. A canvas.

And yes. It's a parasite. It just is. It may well be our favorite parasite, of course... But it's a parasite.

And yes... It's part of the host mother's being. In this sense, the tapeworm is part of the being of the host, too. I didn't say the fetus is an integrated and native structural part of her body... Just part of her being. Until separation, part of her, and hers to do with as she likes.

[Lesotheron]

Now you're arguing philosophy, which I can agree or disagree with, but that isn't the point. Philosophy can't even agree with itself on these matters, and even if it did agree, it has no way (at this time) of proving it to anyone else. In instances like these, I use fact, not philosophy, to base my opinions on.

I said that a fetus is a child, not a person. I never argued that a fetus had an individually formed consiousness. I never argued that a fetus has a sense of self. I never even argued that a fetus is "aware". I agree with you fully that a child, at any stage of development before it can be determined to be sentient is not a person. The law does not say it is murder to kill another person, it says that it is murder to kill another human being. In the absence of being able to quantify or qualify "being" accurately and conclusively, we must default to the scientific evidence that says that a fetus is the same biological organism as any other human being.

Apart from that, I wasn't trying to be insulting with my references to DNA. I was quite sure that you knew what DNA was and how it proved my point. I was just making sure that if any of my facts were in question, the references were there to clarify.

A fetus can be considered a parasite, it meets the criteria to be considered as such. But it is also a child as it meets the criteria to be considered as such. It is up to both of the people who created it to determine what they consider it and make a decision based on that. Would you like to discuss that?

[Swordsman3003]

Just for the record, a fetus does not develop "if left to its own devices." It requires constant nourishment and all kinds of stuff in order to grow properly.

Starving pregnant women have their bodies ravaged by a pregnancy, because a fetus will take resources from its mother's body at all costs. Sometimes, the woman's body's only natural defense is to abort the fetus.

[Honor]

Now you're arguing philosophy, which I can agree or disagree with, but that isn't the point.

No... I'm not arguing philosophy... I'm arguing reality.

I said that a fetus is a child, not a person.

But you didn't prove it's a child... You proved it was made of humanstuff.

I'm saying "child" sarries the same connotations as "person", and one cannot be a child without also being a person.

The law does not say it is murder to kill another person, it says that it is murder to kill another human being.

As I said... The legal terminology varies from place to place and time to time. Sometimes "person", sometimes "human", sometimes "human being". But it's this sense of "personhood" that's the constant. In many cases, the termination of an organism that is all human "stuff", but is deemed not to have that "personhood"... the "being" part of "human being" - is perfectly allowable.

In the absence of being able to quantify or qualify "being" accurately and conclusively, we must default to the scientific evidence that says that a fetus is the same biological organism as any other human being.

Nonsense. As I pointed out above... It's not genetic or structural similarity that marks an organism legally as a "person".

Apart from that, I wasn't trying to be insulting with my references to DNA. I was quite sure that you knew what DNA was and how it proved my point. I was just making sure that if any of my facts were in question, the references were there to clarify.

A fetus can be considered a parasite, it meets the criteria to be considered as such. But it is also a child as it meets the criteria to be considered as such. It is up to both of the people who created it to determine what they consider it and make a decision based on that. Would you like to discuss that?

We have. Over and over. It's not a child until it's born - archaic or superstitious definitions to the contrary notwithstanding - and I've addressed the "helped create it" argument several times now. Unless you can show reasonable unity of intent, the genetic material was discarded.

You don't get a valid argument for fifty percent ownership in an imaginary thing.

[Lesotheron]

Just for the record, a fetus does not develop "if left to its own devices." It requires constant nourishment and all kinds of stuff in order to grow properly.

Starving pregnant women have their bodies ravaged by a pregnancy, because a fetus will take resources from its mother's body at all costs. Sometimes, the woman's body's only natural defense is to abort the fetus.

You've added evidence to my point quite nicely. I said, "A fetus develops if left to it's own devices". It's not guaranteed that it will reach viability, or birth, but it develops if left to its own devices. It feeds off of the woman it is attached to (can we all agree that this is fact so that I don't have to prove it, since I shouldn't have to), since it cannot guarantee that the mother has enough nutrition to offer, that isn't one of it's devices. If the mother's nutrition isn't one of the fetus' devices, it is outside it's control, therefore, it isn't being left to its own devices. It continues to develop until an outside influence (the mother's nutrition, miscarriage, abortion) causes it to cease to develop.

[Swordsman3003]

Not, I did not offer evidence to your side. You interpreted my comment to be the exact opposite of what I said. Flat out.

A. here is a woman
B. she is pregnant
C. she does not move, eat, or do anything at all for the duration of her pregnancy

result: the fetus will be naturally aborted, or the woman will die and the fetus will never finish developing.

Without continuous input and assistance from the mother in the form of nutrients, oxygen, and waste-removal, a fetus will not develop. Left to its own goddamn devices, it dies.

If we would divide up processes into 'passive' and 'active' nourishing a fetus is most definitely in the active category.

And anyways, a fetus's "own devices" are basically its ability to siphon resources out of its mother's body.

[Lesotheron]

Not, I did not offer evidence to your side. You interpreted my comment to be the exact opposite of what I said. Flat out.

A. here is a woman
B. she is pregnant
C. she does not move, eat, or do anything at all for the duration of her pregnancy

result: the fetus will be naturally aborted, or the woman will die and the fetus will never finish developing.

Without continuous input and assistance from the mother in the form of nutrients, oxygen, and waste-removal, a fetus will not develop. Left to its own goddamn devices, it dies.

If we would divide up processes into 'passive' and 'active' nourishing a fetus is most definitely in the active category.

And anyways, a fetus's "own devices" are basically its ability to siphon resources out of its mother's body.

Exactly my point, again. The feeding and nourishing of the mother is active. Once the mother is fed and nourished, the feeding and nourishment of the fetus is passive. The mother does not "give" food and nourishment to the fetus, the fetus "takes" its food and nourishment from the mother whether or not she wants it to (the whole parasite argument can be used for reference).

If a woman is feeding and nourishing herself, regardless of whether or not she is pregnant, she is being left to her own devices. Biology determines that a being requires food and nourishment. A woman is biologically capable of providing her own sustenence (if she lives in an area where food is unavailable, that is not within her control, therefore she is not being left to her own devices and will probably starve).

A fetus is the same thing. It has a biological imperative to find and aquire food and nourishment (as well as the need for waste product removal, but that's not what we're talking about). I has the means, biologically speaking, to do this. If the fetus is in a place where no food or nourishment is available, it is not being left up to its own devices. In a place where food or nourishment is available (any woman who isn't being starved or intentionally starving herself), the fetus *will* provide its own food and nourishment and continue to develop until an outside influence causes it to stop.

A woman has to choose to end a pregnancy if it is continuing, because it does so without her having a say in the matter. A woman can not choose to have her pregnancy continue to term, she can only allow it to continue if it is going to do so.

[Lesotheron]

*A lot of different points, some of which I'll be quoting further down in the post, once I've made several of my own points that are necessary to get to the main point that is used to respond to those quotes.*

This is going to be a very long post, but I’ve used smaller blocks of text to produce more “white space” to make it easier on the eyes. Typically, if there is a double space between two blocks, they are closely related. If it is a triple space, they still may be related, but it is different enough to require notice that it is different.


I'm going to make my points in this post using philosophical(1) arguments instead of scientific arguments to make my main point that philosophy and science are not equal in an argument.


Quotes are used to denote that the word is being treated as a “concept” as opposed to a "being"(2) that can be legally allowed to prove whether or not “protection”(3) is administered in a given situation, unless otherwise noted.

(1) Philosophy is meant as being an "Investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods." as defined by the American Heritage Dictionary.

(2) Using the American Heritage Dictionary definition of "The state or quality of having existence".

(3) Using the Merriam-Webster Dictionary of Law definition of "The act of protecting: The state of being protected.


Philosophy isn't necessarily a bad thing, a lot of great thinkers have been philosophers and they have helped science make many breakthroughs. But if you're dealing strictly with “concepts” and things that can't even be properly identified (the “je ne se quoi” you pointed out), let alone defined, that's the realm of philosophy, not science.


First, let's get the difference between reality, "perceived reality", "possible reality" and "reality" (quotes for reality are used to denote *that which is generally accepted as reality*) clarified:

Reality is what reality is, despite what any individual or group perceives it to be. Reality doesn't need to be proven, it exists or doesn’t exist and we may or may not be able to perceive it if it does. "Perceived reality" is reality as defined by using perception (usually involving one or more of the five senses). "Possible Reality" is what could be reality, but we don't have a way to perceive it as of yet. "Reality" is the general consensus regarding "possible reality" and "perceived reality".


Anything that can alter our perception can change "perceived reality", "possible reality" and "reality" but it has absolutely no effect on reality itself (microscopic organisms, atoms and molecules are "perceived reality" because we can perceive them to exist, and if we can perceive them to exist, they must exist, which makes them also reality. It is generally accepted that we can perceive them to exist, which makes them also "reality". Before the invention of the microscope, they were "possible reality", not "perceived reality" and therefore could only possibly be "reality". They existed, and were therefore reality, whether or not we could perceive them, but they were not able to be "reality" until we were able to make them "perceived reality").


You can't argue reality because reality just IS. Whether or not something exists, it will or won’t exist regardless of anyone’s perceptions. It is only possible to argue "possible reality", "perceived reality" and "reality".


"Possible reality" is the hardest one to argue, because reality is independent from perception, therefore, just because we can't perceive it, doesn't mean that it can't exist and it doesn't mean that we won't be able to perceive it in the future.

Arguments about "possible reality" generally devolve into arguments over people's opinions and beliefs of what reality could be if we had a way of perceiving it as such. Religious arguments are almost entirely “possible reality” based arguments. "God" could be reality. "God" shouldn’t be "reality" (even though it has been for tens of thousands of years to many different religious groups) because we have no way of perceiving it (which makes it "superstition", something that cannot be perceived, but can be believed and accepted without perception required), but that doesn't mean we won't one day be able to perceive it (and no, I don't believe in "God", but whether or not I believe in "God" is irrelevant to whether or not "God" exists. If "God" does exist, I have no reason to believe in it unless I can perceive it, but likewise, if "God" exists, "God" will continue to exist whether or not I can perceive it or choose to believe in it).


Arguments about "perceived reality" are no less problematic even if it only involves reality that can be perceived. Because not everyone is capable of perceiving equally, these arguments can devolve into opinion and belief because there is no proof expected of "perceived reality". If something exists as "perceived reality", it is also reality and can become part of "reality". If someone is not able to perceive reality, then how can they be expected to accept that it exists as "perceived reality"? I’ll get to that farther along in the post.


There is a big problem with using "reality" based arguments because anyone who disagrees with "reality", is automatically considered wrong because they don't agree with the general consensus of "perceived reality".


To illustrate the difference: “Grass” is a reality, a "perceived reality" and “reality”, it exists whether or not we can perceive it, and we are able to perceive it and it is generally accepted that we can perceive it. Then there is the "perceived reality" and "reality" that “grass” is “green” because “grass” can be perceived as “green” and general consensus agrees that “grass” is perceived as “green”. But I do not perceive “grass” as “green”. This is not a choice, this is not an opinion, this is a medically proven fact because I am unable to perceive the color “green” at all. Instead, I perceive “grass” as “blue”, which is a color I am capable of perceiving (unless it is a “lighter” shade of “green”, when I can only perceive “grass” as being “yellow”). I can argue that “grass” isn't “green” because "grass" can also be percieved as "blue", but unless someone understands the previous statements, none of my arguments are going to be considered valid by anyone who confuses reality with "reality". Reality doesn't care what anyone's perception is. “Grass” is a reality that can be perceived and accepted, no matter what color anyone perceives it to be.


Now let's compare concept vs. fact.


“Concepts” can be "perceived realities" (they exist and we can perceive them, like “grass”), but they cannot be definitively proven to someone unable to perceive them. They also cannot be qualified or quantified unless they are made relative to other “concepts”. “Concepts” can be argued and defended, but since you cannot prove them to someone who is unable to perceive them, it is up to the person you are arguing with to agree or disagree with the “concept”. You also can't qualify or quantify concepts (except in relation to other “concepts”) to someone who can perceive them, but chooses to argue them. And since “concepts” can also be used for things that are “possible reality” but not “perceived reality” (once again, “God” is a useful “concept” for this argument), “concepts” can cause many problems in an argument.


“Light” is a “concept”, it cannot be proven to someone unable to perceive it, but is a reality, a "perceived reality" and “reality” because it exists and the general consensus is that we can perceive that it exists. A blind person cannot perceive the reality of “light”. How do you prove to a blind person that “light” exists? You can explain it to them, you can try to illustrate it using the connection between “heat” and “light”, but you cannot prove “light” exists because they are unable to perceive it (standing someone in the sunlight and telling them to feel the “warmth” of the “light” on their skin does not prove “light” to them. It proves “heat” to them and they have to *believe* and *accept* that it is “light” that is causing it. They have to take your word for it that “light” exists at all). You also cannot qualify or quantify “light” to someone who is capable of perceiving “light” (unless you use relatives to other “concepts”), but chooses to argue it. A person who can perceive “light” wants to argue about whether or not a “light” is "bright" (a “concept” being used to qualify or quantify another “concept”). You can only qualify "bright" as being relative to "dim" (another “concept” that doesn't have any way of qualifying it unless you argue it relatively back to "bright").


A deaf person can not perceive the reality of sound (once again, sound is a "concept" that cannot be proven, but if we can perceive it, it must exist). Before you can argue about the connection between vibration and sound, the person must be able to accept the concept of sound first. You can explain (visually this time instead of verbally) about the connection between vibration and sound to illustrate that when a person can perceive certain vibrations in their eardrum, the brain interprets the sound, but it does not prove that sound exists to someone who cannot perceive sound. They have to agree with the general consensus that it exists. You also cannot quantify "loud" unless it is relative to "quiet".


I cannot perceive the reality of “green” (“green” is also a concept, it is in a state that cannot be proven, but we know that it exists because we can perceive that it exists). You can show me 17 different shades of “green”, but there's no way you can prove to me that they are not 17 different shades of “blue” or “yellow”. I cannot perceive “green”, so I can either accept or reject the “concept” of “green”. (just in case you were wondering, I have no problems accepting the “concept” of “green” and it's not important enough to me to argue about it if I did have a problem with it). Whether or not “green” exists doesn't mean that it couldn't exist, and since the "perceived reality" states that “green” exists, the person can just choose to agree with “reality” of “green”. You also cannot qualify a "dark" “green”, unless you make it relative to a "light" “green”, and you can't quantify how "dark" a “green” is, unless it is relative to a "lighter" “green”.


In this way, “grass” is a “concept” that is a reality that can be perceived, no matter what color it is able to be perceived as, but it cannot be proven to exist to someone who is incapable of seeing, feeling, tasting, smelling and hearing it (I don't believe that you can actually "hear" grass, but if it's possible, I can't do it, and I don't really care if anyone else can). You also cannot qualify "long" “grass” unless it is relative to "short" “grass”. You can't quantify how much "more" “grass” your yard needs unless it is relative to an amount that is "less".


“Fact”, on the other hand, is something that can be proven within the general consensus of "perceived reality". “Facts” are dependent on, but independent of perception. A “fact” assumes acceptance of “concepts” if they are unable to be perceived, qualified or quantified. If someone rejects a “concept”, the “fact” that is based upon that “concept” is irrelevant. “Facts” are included in "perceptual reality" because they exist and we can perceive them, but we can prove them using things like “science”. We can also qualify and quantify “facts” independently. If a person wants to argue a “fact”, they have the right to try to disprove the “fact”. If they cannot disprove the “fact”, the “fact” still stands as a valid argument.

“Facts” can change when new evidence is available for proof, which makes “facts” particularly well-suited for arguing "perceived reality" and "reality". When "perceived reality" is changed and the “reality” that relies on it is changed, the “facts” can be adjusted to still prove true to “reality”.


Once again, using “grass”, it is a “fact” that the “grass” in my front yard is “alive”. If you can perceive the “concept” of "life", or if you accept the “concept” of "life", then it can be proven that “grass” is “alive”. If you cannot perceive, and subsequently reject, the “concept” of "life", then it doesn't matter if “grass” is “alive”. It is also a “fact” that “grass” “grows”. If you can perceive or accept the “concept” of "growth" then it can be proven that “grass” does “grow”. This fact can then be qualified and quantified independently. “Grass” “grows” at X “speed” because “grass” “grows” to Y “height” in Z amount of “time”. You can reject any of the “concepts” that you can’t perceive in this “equation”, but if you accept the “concepts” involved, the “equation” will always be able to be proven as a “fact”.


I'm sure I'm not telling you anything you weren't aware of (whether or not you agree). You seem to me to be a very intelligent and well-educated person. My points and explanations in this post are not meant to be belittling or insulting, I'm just making sure my point is as clear as I can make it to prevent any misunderstandings.


Now, using this information to make the main point of this post:

No... I'm not arguing philosophy... I'm arguing reality.

I've made my point about why you can’t argue reality at all, but you were actually arguing "reality", which as I’ve pointed out is a philosophical discussion, not a scientific one.

I'm saying "child" carries the same connotations as "person", and one cannot be a “child” without also being a “person”.

But since "personhood" can't be accurately defined, qualified or quantified, how can you prove that a "child" is or is not equal to a "person"? This is why I base my arguments on “fact”, not “concept”. A “concept” can be accepted or rejected, but if the people involved can agree on the “concepts” then the “facts” are much easier to argue.


You can say that a “child” doesn't have "personhood" before a certain stage of development, but you can't prove that it doesn't, you just may just lack the ability to perceive it. It becomes a matter of opinion and belief where it can mean different things in different situations (as it currently does). This is why I feel that “law” should be based solely on “fact”, not on “concept” and “belief” (but that's a slightly different discussion that crosses this one at several different points).


“Sentience” isn't a “fact”, it is a "perceived reality" because it can be perceived and exists regardless of how anyone perceives it, but since it cannot be proven, qualified or quantified within the general consensus of "perceived reality"(or even properly defined), it's a “concept”. “Consciousness” isn't a “fact” for the same reason (“Person” and “Being” are the same). No “concept” is a “fact” because it cannot be proven.

If only “concepts” are argued, there are problems, because “concepts” can't be proven unless a person can perceive them or accept them in absence of perception. In the case that you argue “concepts” against someone who cannot perceive (or accept in absence of perception) those “concepts”, it becomes a matter of: "I can see it plain as day, why can't you?", "You say you can see it, but I can't see it and you can't prove it, so why should I believe it?", "You should believe it because I say I can see it.", "That’s just not going to happen.”.


I’ve used “grass” several times in this post because I think we can both agree that it is “reality” that “grass” is “alive”, without having to prove that “grass” has “personhood”. There are several “facts” that prove this (I can point out evidence to this, but like you said, you don’t really *need* it, you’ll probably already know anything I can show you, it’s up to you to agree with it or not).

In the discussion of the “fetus=child”. It is a “fact” that a “fetus” is “alive” (it is comprised of “living” materials). It is a “fact” that a “fetus” is “human” if both of its parents were “humans” (genetics proves this, and you’ve agreed, so I’ll stop there). It is a “fact” that a “fetus” is a “being” (it can be proven to exist). If a “fetus” is both a “human” and a “being”, then it is a “fact” that it is a “human being”. It is a “fact” that a “human being” in its early stages of development is a “child” (standard definition, which is “reality”).

You’re arguing that a “human being” does not deserve “protection” in the eyes of the “law” if it cannot be proven to have “personhood”. Sorry, the law doesn’t fully recognize “personhood” and I reject the “concept” of “personhood”. The vegetative and comatose no longer can be proven to have the “personhood” that they may have been able to prove at one point in time. That doesn’t mean they don’t have “protection”.


I reject “personhood” because it is a “fact” that all “biological beings” are driven by “instinct”, the “biological imperative” to do something. “Personhood” is just a way for “human beings” to justify their “instincts” and “morals” to set themselves as superior to other “biological beings”. Since “entity”, “agency”, “sentience”, “consciousness” and whatever other factors go into “personhood” can only be perceived and not proven, how can we prove that “human beings” have it and other beings do not (they may, but we lack the ability to perceive it)? In your example of an “alien being”, you can argue about whether or not it has “personhood”, but there is no way to prove it. If a “being” has “protection”, other “beings” should be given “protection” based on whether or not they are “factually” the same, not “conceptually”. A “human being” should be “protected” the same as any other “human being”, but not necessarily the same as a “feline being”, regardless of whether or not it can prove “personhood”.


This is why I can accept and support “abortion”, “self-defense” and the “death penalty” equally, even though it is a “fact” that killing a “human being” is “murder”. A “human being” can be proven to have “personhood”, yet we are “legally” able to “murder” him if necessary. It is still “murder”, but it is “justified”, just as “abortion” is “murder”, but it is “justified”. People can argue over the “concepts” of “murder” and “justified”, but it is a “fact” that “murder” can be “justified”.


If “murder” can be “justified”, it is up to the “law” to decide when it should be “justified”. I feel that “abortion” should be “justified” once both parents agree that it is, because both parents have an equal “right” and “responsibility” to the “fetus”. If it is contested, then both sides get a say in the matter. The “mother” gets the final decision on “abortion” (until such a time as men can just say “If you don’t want to carry it, you don’t have to. I’ll carry it and you can bite my ass”). The “father” gets the final say in “support” (because unlike with “abortion”, a woman can already “support” the child if the man doesn’t want to).

When both men and women are able to equally share the “responsibility” of a “fetus” (being able to carry it to term and support it afterwards), “abortion” will only be necessary when both of the parents want it. If the mother wants it and the father does not, she can choose to carry it and support it afterwards. If the father wants it and the mother does not, he can take over the “responsibility” of carrying and supporting the child, without her.


You're basically saying that a “fact”, which is something that can be proven within the general consensus of "perceived reality", can and should be trumped by “concept”, which cannot be proven within the general consensus of "perceived reality". Sorry, I base my opinions on what is, not what could be. That is what I consider "intellectually honest".

[Seth Marati]

I got into an argument with some pro-lifers today. I just got back to school, and they were having this "welcome back" fair-type thing for all the students, and there was a booth set up raffling off things like an iPod, a mall gift certificate, and such. The catch was that they were distributing insidious pro-life literature.

It was pretty appalling. The material started off with snippets like "When a sperm and an egg cell meet, they provide everything required for a human to develop. All that's needed is time." and "A woman will tend to feel guilt after an abortion, as she has done something that had gone against her own morals for the sake of 'convenience'." They tried to make things like the morning-after pill seem outright dangerous. What most got me was the detailing of women who felt terrible after having an abortion, which they attributed to purely internal guilt; they "succumbed to society's influence" and went against their morals, committing a terrible mistake, or so the pamphlets would have them believe. I also thought it was very telling that they listed God over and over again as an important part to the "healing process", saying the woman would need to make peace with God after such a procedure.

I started asking whether the woman running the booth actually believed what was written in the pamphlets, then went on with "Maybe women feel guilty and don't talk about having an abortion because of people like you who make them feel humiliated, ashamed, and frightened!" and later said something about how it was sick that they were putting this information into the heads of scared, doubtful women, who would need information about abortions and such things more than anybody else. I don't remember too many of the specifics. The whole thing was pure adrenaline.

[Lesotheron]

I got into an argument with some pro-lifers today. I just got back to school, and they were having this "welcome back" fair-type thing for all the students, and there was a booth set up raffling off things like an iPod, a mall gift certificate, and such. The catch was that they were distributing insidious pro-life literature.

It was pretty appalling. The material started off with snippets like "When a sperm and an egg cell meet, they provide everything required for a human to develop. All that's needed is time." and "A woman will tend to feel guilt after an abortion, as she has done something that had gone against her own morals for the sake of 'convenience'." They tried to make things like the morning-after pill seem outright dangerous. What most got me was the detailing of women who felt terrible after having an abortion, which they attributed to purely internal guilt; they "succumbed to society's influence" and went against their morals, committing a terrible mistake, or so the pamphlets would have them believe. I also thought it was very telling that they listed God over and over again as an important part to the "healing process", saying the woman would need to make peace with God after such a procedure.

I started asking whether the woman running the booth actually believed what was written in the pamphlets, then went on with "Maybe women feel guilty and don't talk about having an abortion because of people like you who make them feel humiliated, ashamed, and frightened!" and later said something about how it was sick that they were putting this information into the heads of scared, doubtful women, who would need information about abortions and such things more than anybody else. I don't remember too many of the specifics. The whole thing was pure adrenaline.

I wish I had seen that. The pro-life side of the issue is all about what is "right" and "wrong", which can change from person to person (they just assume that everyone who thinks differently from them is automatically "wrong"). The pro-choice side of the issue should be (not always is) about what is "fair" and "just". The society you live in determines what is "fair" and "just", you can either just accept it, try to change it, or move somewhere else.

The difference becomes plain when people realize that it is just as "wrong" for a woman to have an abortion if she feels that she shouldn't, than it is "wrong" for someone who has no rights, responsibility or even continuing interest in the child to determine that a woman can't have an abortion.

It is "fair" and "just" for a woman to have an abortion if she wants or needs it, just as it is "fair" and "just" for a woman to be able to keep her child if she wants it.

But the pro-life side of the issue is so wrapped up in "possible reality" (as explained in my earlier post), that they don't bother to spare any consideration for "practical reality" (a concept that I can explain if needed, but in context, it's probably pretty evident).

[Honor]

Holy fucking shit.

That has to be the longest, most arcane, most condescending (which you said you didn't intend, so we'll ignore that bit... Thoroughness often simply has that effect.) way to present the elementary school "philosophy" question of "Well, how can you really prove anything? Maybe we're all just ants in some giant ant farm?" I've ever seen or heard.

Further, it has the quality of being so overwhelmingly, galactically long that it's difficult to even contemplate the massive task of attempting to address it point by point.

Let's start with "being". I saw your definition listing and immediately thought "What the fuck!?! I always knew the American Heritage Dictionary was shit, but this is ridiculous..."

So I had to go and have a look for myself...

being
NOUN: 1. The state or quality of having existence. See synonyms at existence. 2a. Something, such as an object, an idea, or a symbol, that exists, is thought to exist, or is represented as existing. b. The totality of all things that exist. 3a. A person: “The artist after all is a solitary being” (Virginia Woolf). b. All the qualities constituting one that exists; the essence. c. One's basic or essential nature; personality.
CONJUNCTION: Chiefly Southern U.S., Upper Southern U.S., & New England Because; since. Often used with as or that.

Well... Still shit. But a hell of a lot closer. For comparison, let's look at the relevant entry in the concise version of the authoritative dictionary of the English language...

being
· n.
1 existence. Ø living; being alive.
2 the nature or essence of a person.
3 a real or imaginary living creature: alien beings.

Then it occurred to me that, when you said:

(2) Using the American Heritage Dictionary definition of "The state or quality of having existence".

You probably meant "For the purposes of this argument, I will be using the portion of the AHD definition which states..." right?

The problem here is that, by this portion of this particular definition, a nice ottoman is a "being". It exists. It has existence. Ergo, it's a "being".

Which, for the purposes of this discussion, is utter shit.

You say:

You’re arguing that a “human being” does not deserve “protection” in the eyes of the “law” if it cannot be proven to have “personhood”. Sorry, the law doesn’t fully recognize “personhood” and I reject the “concept” of “personhood”. The vegetative and comatose no longer can be proven to have the “personhood” that they may have been able to prove at one point in time. That doesn’t mean they don’t have “protection”.

Relevant to the word "being"... Yes, the law does fully recognize personhood, whether you choose to reject it or not. Legally, a "person" is typically a "human being who has been born and is alive." (NY statutes used in this case, language varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and time to time.)


Also, since the paragraph is on the page, I'll address the mistatements at the beginning and end of it...

First, Bullshit. I'm "arguing" (actually, simply relating) that a "human being" does not enjoy protection in the eyes of the law if it has no personhood.

It may be tempting, at this point, to re-assert the "prenatal murder" laws that exist in some states, so I'll pre-re-address it. The language in these laws is always specific to the situation of the legal fiction of an "unborn person"... Hence, they require "special circumstance" laws, since the "person" addressed is, legally, not a person at all.

They're nothing more or less than an attempt to address an emotional need to seek justice for an anticipated potential person... If the potential person were an actual legal person, no additional law would be needed.


Toward the end, you're incorrect in the assertion that a "person" in a persistent vegetative state enjoys protection as a human being. I'm familiar with the process, I've given the order to terminate myself. The person (relative, spouse, etc) with "jurisdiction" is perfectly free to make that choice... In the case such a "relative" is unknown or not in existence, pretty much any old doctor can do it.

When we had a big national legal fight over whether or not to terminate in the case of Terri Schiavo a few years ago, the legal battle was not over whether or not we could "kill" her, or whether or not we could "kill" a person in a persistent vegetative state... The battle was simply over whether or not "she" was in such a state, since, if she was, her husband had every right under our laws to terminate her artificial continuation.)



Anyway... Your whole argument basically goes seven times 'round the mulberry bush to establish the idea that, since the words and concepts are kind of fuzzy, and we can't really "prove" personhood, being, existence, humanity, broccoli, whatever to your satisfaction, the fetus-child must be a fully real human being, same as you and me...

This is really nothing more or less than a very fancy argumentum ad ignorantiam, given the steroids of the philosophical mind-game that "nothing can really be proven"... So the position you like the best must be the one that's true.



In closing... Let's use a bit from your address as an illustration.

"I can see it plain as day, why can't you?"
"You say you can see it, but I can't see it and you can't prove it, so why should I believe it?"
"You should believe it because I say I can see it."
"That’s just not going to happen.”

This is not actually an accurate representation of the situation at hand.

I've "proven" it over and over. The only conditions of "personhood" that an unborn fetus meets are the most superficial and meaningless ones... That it's composed of human DNA and has a typically "human" physical structure.

These are not conditions that have been considered valid or meaningful since the time when we were still arguing whether black people or people born with deformities were "human" or had "souls".

As I've already said... If there were really any meaningful lack of consensus, it wouldn't be legal in just about every civilized country in the world.

I'm not here to teach law. I've explained what the law is, and why it's that way... If you don't understand or accept it, that's really beyond the scope of my purpose here.

I'm not here to teach anthropology, physiology, or developmental psychology. I've explained the reasons why a fetus (or even a five month old infant) simply aren't "persons" (and, socially, why we pretend the infants are)... Why they cannot be persons. It's not that we "don't know", or that we can't "prove" it, any more than we don't know or can't prove that worms aren't persons. Neither the capacity nor the possibility are there. They're just not.

I'm sorry if you feel I haven't "proven" it adequately... I don't expect you to accept it solely on the strength of my word, but I also don't feel a responsibility to prove it further. I think, though, if you put my arguments in front of a hundred people, you'd find very many of them did think I'd proven it very thoroughly and eloquently.

(To be fair, many of them would probably have already felt the same way beforehand, and very many of the others might also feel you'd proven your position thoroughly and eloquently... And they'd probably have held that position beforehand, too. This is really indicative of nothing so much as that the information is already well known, and "out there", and people either "get it" or they don't... And some significant percentage of those who don't simply might not be able to.)

Yes... You can find people with letters after their names to disagree. Intelligence doesn't guarantee education, and education doesn't guarantee intelligence, wisdom, or understanding.

There are still people with letters after their names arguing that god obviously exists. That homosexuality is a psychological disorder, a perversion, or a choice. That evolution isn't real. That global warming isn't real. ...Some "learned individual(s)" can be found to contradict pretty much every individual concept or idea that pretty much every serious professional in the world understands and accepts.



For my money, one of the most interesting mysteries in the world is how a set of facts can be laid out, one person can see it, and another just... can't. Is it indoctrination? Is it anthropocentric self interest? Is it a failure or limit of intellectual functionality? I don't know. I have theories, but when it comes down to it, I really just don't know... Yet.

What I do know is that, to some degree or another, people can be classified by any point or points of data, and those classifications can be compared... As you might with venn diagrams or cluster plots.

There are those who understand evolution, and those who don't. There are those who believe in god, and those who don't. There are those who have successfully completed a post-graduate degree and those who haven't. There are those with an IQ over, say, 120, and those with an IQ under that mark. There are those who think an abortion is the killing of a human being, and those who think it's the discarding of a specific kind of cells... The termination of an incomplete process.

There will be exceptions in every category... but where do you think the major overlays are? Where do the data cluster?

[Lesotheron]

This may not be completely coherent because I’m not using my normal method of organizing my thoughts, but I’m sure you’ll be able to understand what is being said. And while I make no guarantee of brevity, I promise I'll keep this well under 3,000 words this time.

First off, WOW.

I really didn't mean to come across as condescending, but as you said, the level of thoroughness I tried to provide seems to imply it. But as much thoroughness as I tried to put into it, I am suitably impressed that in an epic-sized post like that, you managed to find the few things that I didn't state clearly enough to prevent misinterpretation.

I may not agree with you on the topic at hand, but I bow respectfully (not in submission, yet) before your tenacity. It's nice to know that when I took the time to be as thorough as I was in my argument, you had the consideration to take the time to be, at the very least, equally as thorough in reading and comprehending it.

You, Honor, are truly someone to be feared. If you ever do succeed in taking over the world as our Lesbian Overlord, I can at least endure (if not enjoy) my future slavery, comfortable in the knowledge that you didn't succeed by doing it half-assed.

Most people would have given up a long time ago, but you still continue to defended your position both thoroughly and eloquently (as you have from the beginning) without letting it degenerate into personal attacks, abusive language or open hostility. You are obviously very passionate about the subject, but you do not let your passion override your logic or reason.

But I must confess, while I feel I am equally as passionate about the subject as you (for the reason originally stated), and I would be willing to defend my beliefs (as archaic and therefore erroneous as you believe they are) with my very life, my motives for continuing to argue the subject, and my beliefs, are less than "pure", because I've been using this argument to make a statement about something I feel even more passionately about.

I know that you are fully capable of reasoning out my motives and my primary statement, but in case you haven't yet, I'll just tell you to save you the effort (the argument itself has been effort enough for the both of us).

I've gone to, what some might call "extremes" (like having over 3,600 words, or the equivalent to 9 pages, in a single post), to argue my points because I am unable to accept the general belief that two opposing viewpoints cannot coexist, even if they're working towards the same basic goal.

I'm ashamed to say that I've been treating you as a metaphorical "little white lab mouse" running you through the maze of "argument" to see if you can reach the cheese of "compromise". If you believe that is “wrong” of me, I apologize, but it was necessary to find out if a “compromise” could be achieved at all. Sadly, it appears that it is not. If someone like you can’t accept a compromise that would actually benefit everyone, I don’t hold out much hope for the Average Joe’s, Average Jane’s and least of all, the LeftTentacleGreen’s. He or she will probably take great offense at that, but I can’t say I give a shit right now.

I’ve been using this entire argument to make a statement that people are more concerned with defending their beliefs than they are about trying to work together. That individuality, while essential, should not be more important than a society that allows all individuals to exist in peace. That the whole can be, and should be, treated as greater than the sum of its parts. That is what I meant when I said I was “pro-choice”, not just the choice of abortion, but of all choice that doesn't impede another person's choice.

You’ll call me an idealist, and I’ll call you a cynic, and we’ll battle back and forth using our intellect as sword and shield, but the fact remains, I presented a compromise that allowed all “people” to be treated equally in a situation, where as of right now, they cannot actually be equal, allowing for their beliefs without having to defend them, and you rejected it because it contradicted your beliefs.

The basic nature of Humanity seems to involve self-preservation, and species-preservation. If we can’t learn to put species-preservation above self-preservation, eventually we’re going to “hate” and “intolerance” ourselves out of existence.



I am not conceding or admitting defeat on any of these or other arguments I've made in this topic (except that a fetus can be considered a parasite). Instead, I offer you the chance to join me in "agreeing to disagree". If we continue this, we've both proven that we are willing and able to go on until one of us gives up. It is not because either one of us doesn’t “get it”, it’s because neither one of us is willing to “let it go”. I feel confident enough in my logic, reasoning and tenacity that I'm willing to do so, and I’m sure you do as well, but I feel that "tests of will" are inferior to "compromise" in deciding an argument. Since it seems we cannot reach a compromise, I'll let you decide between the other two options.

“Fight or Flight” was great before we became “enlightened”, but even wolves can work together when it benefits them, and they don’t even have “personhood”.

And I made my point in fewer than 1,000 words. Even if you can pick it apart to a sub-atomic level, I’m confident that it’s been accurately presented without needing to be overly-thorough.

[Honor]

First, well met, and you shall have a happy and comfortable place in the New Order. It won't be deciding policy of reproductive rights, but it will be happy and comfortable, nontheless.

But as much thoroughness as I tried to put into it, I am suitably impressed that in an epic-sized post like that, you managed to find the few things that I didn't state clearly enough to prevent misinterpretation.

I have to politely disagree... And, of course, I have to say why.

I didn't focus on those points because they were the only unclear part ...It is, after all, a largely philosophical argument, and philosophy is generally and intentionally unclear. If I'd done as I often feel compelled to do (and compulsion is a fairly accurate illustrative in this case) and answered the unclear or inaccurate points for their own merits, regardless of their bearing on the germane points of the issue at hand, I'd still be replying to posts several back.

I mean... You actually seemed to be arguing, at one point, that unborn fetuses were "persons" because we say a woman is "heavy with child".

Rather, I restrained myself and focused on those points because they were the only ones in your essay that were truly germane to the point at hand... That being, in my view, "is it a person?"

Answering the rest would only serve to make the post longer and muddy the water.


I can certainly appreciate the drive to find common ground... Find a compromise that will allow both to retain their individual views and still work together. In very many cases, I would readily embrace such a possibility... But there are always going to be needful exceptions.

This is one of those cases... Because, as much as you baptize each post with the holy words "But I'm pro-choice.", the views that you're representing are inherently violent to that choice.

The people who so badly want to compromise my personhood by taking away my reproductive freedom, to force my behavior to conform to their religious world-view*, aren't going to read your position and say "Well, he agrees it's a human life, but we can't use that, because he's pro-choice. I guess there are times when it's right to take a human life."

If they were capable of that leap, they'd have already realized that their support for war and capital punishment already implies that it's sometimes ok to take a human life.

They're going to say "It's a human life! It's a child!. A baby!! Even some pro-choice people are honest enough to agree with that! All that remains is to admit / legislate / enforce that it's not ever "ok" to murder a child!"


It's legally, ethically, and historically dangerous to form a "compromise" that flies in the face of reality, or that's based on the idea that your freedoms are a thinly established fiction, protected only by the whim of momentary indulgence.

We don't form cooperative compromise with people who maintain that "...people with brown skin aren't actually humans, but I guess it's ok if they drink from our water fountains." because it's obvious that they're dangerously deluded, and it's equally obvious that if, by our tolerance, we allow 51% of people to become similarly deluded, the next obvious step is for them to say "Well, since they're not really humans, why do we have to let them use our fountains?"



Sadly, sometimes, the compromise is far more dangerous than the fight.




* That they are primarily interested in taking my freedoms away and forcing religious obedience is made obvious and inarguable by the fact that the same people tend to fight equally vehemently against the legitimization of "sinful" forms of sex and meaningful sex-ed, and that they don't spend nearly as much energy fighting to help children who have been born as they do fighting to make sure they all get born.

You have to see that you're in a vanishingly small minority, trying to straddle both a support of reproductive freedom and fetal personhood. In the larger percentages, the abortion debate is not about fetal life... It's about keeping an imaginary god on top of everyone, and, more importantly, keeping women in their place.

[Lesotheron]

WARNING: I know what this post is going to look like, there is a reason why I'm doing it, do not take this seriously. I'll be back later with a real response.

Ah, fight it is then.

Before I begin, on an almost entirely unrealated, yet possibly humor-inspiring note (because every argument could use some humor once in a while):

First, well met, and you shall have a happy and comfortable place in the New Order. It won't be deciding policy of reproductive rights, but it will be happy and comfortable, nontheless.

Is this "happy and comfortable" according to my standards, your standards, or an independant third party's standards? I'm not saying any of them would be disagreeable, but I'd like to know what you have in mind.


Now that that's out of the way, I'll beg your indulgence for something.


I think we can agree (whether or not you want to) that I'm reasonably "aware" and it can be argued that I am also reasonably "self-aware" (these would have to be agreed for the indulgence I beg). Being "self-aware", even if only reasonably, I should warn you that my brain (being the organ with which I percieve concept) seems to be composed of equal parts philosophy and intellect (which is not necessarily universally true of every "person", please don't take that as an invitation to argue whether or not I'm actually a person, I don't mind, it's just as you said, the watter is muddy enough).

The indulgence I beg is your forgiveness if I ever get caught in a logical loop of "everything IS possible/EVERYTHING can't be possible". I seem to be particularly prone to those because my brain can equally percieve either concept as valid, yet they contradict each other. This leads to the argument that "everything IS possible, that includes the fact that EVERYTHING is possible, but since EVERYTHING can't be possible then everything can't be possible, but everything IS possible, including the fact that EVERYTHING is possible, but EVERYTHING can't be possible...

BREAK

GOTO 10

I'll try to avoid it because it's "circular logic" that doesn't really get anything accomplished. The compromise that we default to either the philisophical or the intellectual could be used to help prevent that from happening. If you would like to accept the compromise (whether or not you agree with it), you can decide which should be the default. It might prove useful to the both of us down the line.

One point I would like to be discussed (does not mean that we have to discuss it, but it may be needed to discuss it at another time), is that you rejected my compromise because it accepted something that could and would be argued to shatter the compromise that accepts it, even though the compromise accepts it as a possiblity, not necessarily a reality, isn't it also valid to say that since "anything" can be used to argue against a compromise if enough people agree to argue against it (which would not make it rational, but people aren't always necessarily rational), that we can never come to a compromise? If this is true, then it must also be true that the flaw in argument is actually "people" because they must agree to compromise for compromise to have continued existence. And since we've proven that it's very difficult to get people to agree on anything (we've been proving it for days now), they are a flaw that we may not be able to correct, and therefore my main point: People Suck!!!

This is not central to the topic at hand, but it is at least tangentennaly conected and therefore possibly required to prove something that is central to the topic at hand. (think of it as my brain's warm-up)


In closing, for now:

Since I just recently got over my rather serious bout of insomnia, I'm going to respond more fully once I've had the opportunity to get some quality time with my subconsious. But your new workboots and shovel are over there, I've given you plenty of starting points and you can start while I sleep. Once I wake up and discover where you started, I'll start at the opposite end and hopefully we'll be able to meet somewhere in the middle. But we've got to keep at it, this ditch isn't going to dig itself, the "muddy water" is rising and we only have the rest of eternity to figure it out. Talk about mixing your fucking metaphors.

Anyway, no matter how frustrated I may or may not become at a future time, as of right now, it is a pleasure to be able to argue with you Honor.

En Garde!

For your edification: This post is what happens when I mix philosophy, intellect and lack of adequate sleep (more than 30 hours without, in my case), without sending it through the word processor for spelling and gramattical errors that I am unable to catch on my own, not to mention checking it over for logical errors that I probably can't even see at the moment. This post doesn't even have any of the structure that I usually apply.

So, if I suggest that we try to keep well rested, I'll also ask your indulgence for a temporary repreive if I find myself unable to sleep again (I don't know if I can sleep right now, because I haven't been able to up to this point, but after I log off, I may not be able to when I go to bed).

I do this to prove that even the most rational mind (not saying that mine is the most rational mind) can come off as a complete and raving lunatic, under certain circumstances, so even if I sound like I'm crazy, it doesn't mean I'm crazy, I just may not be able to prove that I'm not crazy, but then agian, if I can't prove that I'm not crazy, maybe I am crazy...

BREAK

GOTO 10

I decided to try a little experiment with free-form thought. Let me know what you think of it.

The saddest thing is, there's a part of the "human brain" that can accept all of this as valid, accurate and true. But please, for the love of everything you hold dear, don't try to dissect it, better people than either of us have snapped trying to interpret free-form thought. This is just an illustration of how scary my mind can be when it's not controlled.

END WARNING!!!!

Up to now, you afforded me a level of respect, I don't want this post to change that, but I needed to do it to ask you if we can set some guidelines for the argument. "My" controlled mind produces rational thought, "my" uncontrolled mind produces this ("my" being intended as belonging to me). What guidelines do you feel we should use to help me control "my" mind?

And out of curiosity, how much of the post can you follow? I've always been fascinated with free-form thought and it's ability to make connections that other people can't even follow, yet still make sense to me, but it's difficult to talk to people about it, because you look like a raving lunatic, like I just did. If you can follow it, can you reform it into something that can be considered rational? And more importantly, can you determine if any of this is "truth"? And if so, what is "truth"?

BREAK

GOTO 10

I'll stop here.

[Swordsman3003]

I just realized today that I think arguing humanity through genetics is a non sequitur fallacy.

[Lesotheron]

I just realized today that I think arguing humanity through genetics is a non sequitur fallacy.

That's certainly possible, but as I've said, genetics can be proven. "Humanity" needs to be judged by the people arguing.

Honor pointed out that, years ago, anyone who had more than a certain level of melanin in their skin was not counted as part of Humanity. Does that mean that they weren't Human? Does that mean that they were not capable of being judged as Human? Of course not, it just means that they weren't "civilized" enough for society to recognize their Humanity. If they are genetically human, they deserve to be treated as such because their level of "civilization" does not determine their Humanity. So, is a fetus any less a "Person" just because it's not "developed" enough for society to judge its "Personhood"?

What about a certain "Race" and "Religion"? The "Nazis" believed that they were genetically inferior, even though they could prove their Humanity. Was it right for the "Nazis" to slaughter them just because they couldn't prove that they weren't inferior?

If you can't "prove" that something is the same, or at least similar enough to be treated the same as something you "protect", does that mean that you shouldn't "protect" it? What standards should even be used to "judge" it?

This is one area where Honor and "Modern Religion" can agree. "Modern Religion" states that it is the "soul" that gives us our "Humanity". Honor says it is our "Personhood" that makes us "People". Neither one is tangible. Neither one can be proven. It is up to society to judge based on the facts that can be proven.

Honor states that children under a certain level of development are not really "People" because they do not have "Personhood". I argue that before a certain level of development, society isn't able to recognize their "Personhood". There is no way to test a child for "Personhood", there is only a certain point where we are able to recognize it.

Since when it occurs can be argued (like pretty much everything can if enough people want to believe it), I default to the factual evidence that can be used to prove that a "Person" is a human, even if we can not judge their "Humanity", and that a human will be able to be seen as having "Personhood" if it is allowed to develop enough for society to recognize it.

This is not a personal attack, but Honor is using the same dangerous thinking that allowed an entire "Race" to be subjugated and treated as inferior, leading to slavery. This is the same dangerous thinking that allowed an entire "Race" and "Religion" to be treated as inferior and killed by the millions. This thinking says that if we can't "judge" it, we shouldn't have to "recognize" it.

If this "Race" of Humans whose only noticeable difference is appearance, hadn't embraced "civilization" so that we can clearly see how wrong it was to "judge" them in absence of being able to "prove" their Humanity, would this "Race" still be treated as "inferior"? I don't have to answer this, just ask the KKK (which still exists, despite all of the evidence that proves them to be intolerant, egocentric assholes in bedsheets). Ask the Neo-Nazis (this group is especially fun because they don't believe anyone has Humanity or Personhood if they're not "exactly" like them) if the Jewish "Race" and "Religion" deserve to be treated as equals, because they can prove their "Humanity" and "Personhood".

Intolerance can only be defeated when society can overcome it. People will always be able to "feel" that something is right, even if it shouldn't be. It is up to society as a whole to determine if it should be "right".

I say that genetics and psychology both prove that if a fetus is allowed to develop, it will show both "Humanity" and "Personhood", once it reaches the level of development where we can currently recognize such things. I say that it is not logical to assume that just because we are incapable of recognizing it, we should treat it as if it isn't there.

Since the law already "protects" humans when society can't recognize their "Personhood", using the arbitrary line of birth, and has established that there are cases where that "protection" does not apply, it only needs to establish "birth" as the line where "protection from abortion" applies.

This way, a fetus is the same as a child, which is the same as a teenager, which is the same as an adult; in the same way that a black man is the same as a white man, which is the same as a white woman, which is the same as a black woman. Everyone is protected equally. If someone (other than its parents) chooses to "terminate" a fetus, they are not allowed, because the fetus has protection in the same way that children do. If the parents choose abortion, it is allowed because they have "jurisdiction" to make that choice, up until "birth" when "protection from abortion" kicks in, then they can just put the child up for adoption.

Once both men and women are able to carry the fetus, both should have the right to do so. The woman would have priority because that is where the fetus begins, but if she doesn't want to carry it, the man should be allowed to do so.

Honor: If our freedoms aren't some thinly-veiled fiction, why do we have to work so hard to defend them? Enlightenment is nothing more than stumbling through the dark, hoping not to step in something you can't identify, and then trying to identify it when you inevitably do. That’s where we are now, standing knee deep in something really unpleasant that we need to identify.

P.S. Sorry about the "free-form argument". I thought it might be fun to try it out and see what you thought about it.

[Honor]

This is not a personal attack, but Honor is using the same dangerous thinking that allowed an entire "Race" to be subjugated and treated as inferior, leading to slavery. This is the same dangerous thinking that allowed an entire "Race" and "Religion" to be treated as inferior and killed by the millions. This thinking says that if we can't "judge" it, we shouldn't have to "recognize" it.

I''m not taking it as a personal attack... But it is patently ridiculous.

In fact, the very comparison is well beyond ridiculous.

Just because you may not understand developmental psychology and the capability to test and judge self-awareness doesn't mean nobody else can.

This isn't a "big ol' dark mystery" field of study, as much as you'd like to make it so. It's just not. I'm sorry.

Self-awareness is the quality that confers personhood... Not genetics, not architecture, not skin color or faith or civilization (another reference you got backwards) or lack thereof.

Self-awareness is not a philosophical black hole... it's fairly simple to detect and test in anything that has both self-awareness, sentience, and intelligence...

It's not that we don't know if fetuses are self-aware, it's not that we can't prove fetuses are self aware, it's not that we suspect fetuses aren't self-aware. It's that they're Not. Fucking. Self. Aware.

It can be academically debated whether dolphins have self-awareness... It can be debated whether bonobos have self-awareness... It's a bit of a reach, but one can even semi-academically debate whether domestic dogs and cats have self-awareness...

But it can't really be intelligently debated whether an unborn human fetus has self-awareness... Know why? Well, just for starters, because we can easily and clearly demonstrate that a six month old human child doesn't...



...fuck... I'm too tired for this.