Total posts: 3,192
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Yes. 100%.
And this precedes law, correct?
Here's our disconnect. I maintain that the blastocyst/zygote/embryo/fetus is 100% mother's body.Only when the cord is cut does that mass of cells become a CITIZEN, subject to and protected by the law-of-the-land.
This seems to be an unintentional straw-man (and an appeal to emotion). The mass of cells that is 100% mother's body is subject to the mother's whim. The mass of cells has the same legal status as a parasite or a tumor.
Why is she obligated to a foreign mass of cells and not her own, presuming the veracity of your premise? (And please don't state: inside = non-citizen; outside = citizen.) Speak to the nature of the obligation and the justification of its imposition.
Please explain this statement.
The privacy of which I speak is not in reference to physicality. I mean her finances and her labor, and her discretion in choosing those whom she provides it.
Transfer her obligations may be as simple as abandoning the child at a designated safe-haven.
My inquiry is not concerned with its simplicity, any more than "close your legs," albeit simple, is a concern worth entertaining for pro-life arguments. Why is the obligation imposed in the first place? Better yet, why ought it be imposed? Would you, 3RU7AL, who argues in favor a woman's privacy endorse the position that a mother bears an obligation to her child, and must transfer her obligation by legally sanctioned means?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SirAnonymous
Philosophy doesn't presuppose the validity of logic?Philosophically. More down-to-earth things like science and law presuppose logic is valid, or else they can't function.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SirAnonymous
In what context are you attempting to substantiate validity? Philosophically? Legally? Scientifically? You ought to make that clear.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
Why is equality (via law) "fair"?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Most humans have parental instincts and since the law is written as a consensus of social norms (mob rule), this is part of the law.Protecting infants does have some utility, since a society cannot survive without infants, and furthermore, orphans often make good soldiers.
I'll phrase it this way: do you believe maintaining the position that a woman's privacy is paramount, even to the extent of relinquishing/shirking any responsibility to the sustenance she may bear her unborn child, without which said unborn child/fetus/embryo/zygote etc. would likely die,, is (logically/philosophically/ethically) consistent with maintaining the position that she is bound to assume responsibility for a born child/infant--privacy be damned--until she can transfer her obligations to an institution/individual who would relieve her of her duty to the infant as its parent?
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Any person can invoke a "stat" and arguments by definition consist of "reasoning." Left-Wing legislators are usually and demonstrably wrong when it comes to fiscal policy, and as far as social policy, they're both comparably fascist. I'd endorse neither party because that would really be like comparing the intellgence of Dumb and Dumber. But Left-Wing politics would be in my judgement "Dumber."I never understood that nuance... The Left-Wing consistently based their policy on stats and reasoning. The Right-Wing usually revolve around 'absolute morals' that they assign to a religious authority to then call everyone who opposes it 'evil', no matter how good the opposition's reasoning is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
We already have seen the effects in Seattle at only $15. The data is in. Fewer jobs. Fewer hours offered.
I often stray away from contests over data because "data" can be conceived for almost anything--even for the labor market of Seattle. Often data are mere snapshots of isolated circumstances. It's the reasoning, I believe, which matters most. The minimum wage creates unemployment much like an age limit at a bar alienates younger customers. If the law requires I impose a 21 and above age limit at my bar, tautologically, that means everyone below the age 21 cannot legally enter. If one imposes a minimum wage of 15 dollars, tautologically, those who generate commerce at $14.99 and below cannot legally work.
At best, those who support the minimum wage believe that either the minimum wage is always commensurate to the productivity generated by low-skilled workers (a claim that has yet to be substantiated) or that the productivity of low-skilled work is irrelevant and that the provision of one's means is more important than an employer's profit. I suspect the latter is more prominent, though neither are sound rationales.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
Since humans are not created equal their will exist various modes of interaction, dependent on the individual and the circumstances they find themselves in.A human law seeks to equalize any disparity of humans non-equality and in as many sets of circumstances { scenarios } as can be mathematically accounted for with the technology available to them at that time.Those laws can be a dictator or any set of human created laws.
I was really asking the question in the context of this subject, but I'll bite: why is equality the end sought by law if as you say, humans are not created equal?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
We don't know that there's a border; we posit that there's a border as a epistemological/"metalogical" consequence. It's purpose is as you say, "a placeholder." It's a mere negation which cannot provide any sort of information.It's like the border of the observable universe. We know there's a border. There is no logical contradiction with identifying the border. What's on the other side of that border? NOUMENON.
Well, logically, we know it can't be "no-thing". Because there can't be "no-thing". There is no such thing as "no-thing" because it can only be no-where and no-size and no-shape and no-substance and no-information. It actually defines itself out of existence (Ex Nihilo).If it can't be "no-thing" then it must be NOUMENON (not some-thing, but also not-nothing).
Is there knowledge beyond us?
It emphasizes our epistemological limits (AND) it "answers" idiotic questions claimed to be the exclusive domain of religion.
Does it emphasize or answer? Or is it a mere and unavoidable logical statement (much like p and not p?) The meaning is contingent upon one's acceptance of logic.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Then it is at the mercy of its environment. Just like any other creature.
So then, it would follow that its parent bears it no legal obligation to make sure its abandoned at a sanctioned public institution even if it's an infant. If the infant is not a legal citizen, no one bears it an obligation. Now, let's scrutinize the reason legal citizen ship does create an obligation to the infant's sustenance, whether it be maintained by its parent or some other custodian (medical, religious, public official.) Is it simply "that's the law" or is there some utility (political/economic) it serves?
Law is codified mob-rule.
That's an apt description of democracy (and to some extent law in and of itself.) But the question solicits a normative response. What ought to be the mode of interaction between individuals?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Human instinct. Some people have it and some don't. There is no intrinsic or universal "obligation".
Legal obligation?
Once the umbilical is cut (and or other direct nutrient connection), depending on the law-of-the-land, that mass of cells may qualify for citizenship (and associated rights) of that land.
And if it doesn't qualify?
That question wholly depends on the law-of-the-land.
What ought to be the law of the land?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
We'll use your princess and the pea story. You said that "Clearly there is something under the bed," suggesting ontological objectivity; now this is independent (does not rely) of detection. But does this infer separation or isolation? The detection is fundamentally tied to the something under the bed (otherwise what are you attempting to detect) but it's being something under the bed is not informed by one's detection.Ok, master hair-splitter, what's the functional/relevant/salient/germane distinction between "independent" and "isolated"?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
When that mass of cells leaves your body and its connection to your consumed nutrients is physically severed, then, at that moment, that, newly independent mass of cells may be granted citizenship (if it meets the necessary prerequisites to qualify for citizenship).If the former host does not wish to continue feeding the new citizen, then it becomes a ward of the state.
But why is there an obligation to begin with? Why can't she just leave it there? And if she has a home-birth, does the infant automatically become a citizen once it leaves her body?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I'm talking about STEP #1.What's STEP #1?STEP #1, select an egg. STEP #2, select a pan. STEP #3, select a stove. STEP #4, fill pan with water...
I'll indulge this no more.
Excellent point. So what would you propose if the example was a benign (non-life-threatening) cancerous tumor?
There are no benign cancerous tumors; the tumor is either benign (non-malignant) or cancerous (malignant.) Either way, she can excise it at her discretion.
Unique DNA code is functionally identical to Distinct DNA code.More of your pointless hair-splitting.
No, it's "functionally identical" in its service as the premise of your rebuttal, which operates on a non sequitur.
Anything living inside my body, and feeding off the nutrients I consume is part of me.This would include any tumors and or parasites, regardless of how unique (or distinct) their DNA coding is.
Then explain how this rationale creates an obligation to that which is outside your body, not (necessarily) feeding off the nutrients you consume?
Note: you can't qualify unique (i.e. "how unique.") Unique in this context is an absolute state. And this harks back to the distinction between "distinct" and "unique."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Are you familiar with Gödel's incompleteness theorems?
Yes.
A mind CANNOT know everything about itself.
You're once again presuming the scope of that which you argue can't be known. If the mind doesn't and can't know everything about itself, this would suggest a sense of everything, including that which it can't know.
I'd say that "existence" is probably not the best word to describe noumenon (mainly because the definition of "exists" requires empirical verifiability). I believe it is a mistake to imagine noumenon as some sort of "thing" when it is merely an amorphous concept that acts as a place-holder for both "what we don't currently know" (Mysterium Invisus) and "what may be fundamentally unknowable" (Magnum Mysterium). For example, noumenon might be eleventy-trillion layers of sci-fi multiverse, noumenon might be an elaborate alien computer simulation, noumenon might be Brahma's dream, noumenon might be a single super-intelligent (but not omniscient) demiurge that we humans are merely appendages of. In all likelihood, it is conceptually, literally, ultimately and completely beyond our ability to comprehend. All of this makes it very very very difficult for me to believe that we can consider (with any degree of confidence whatsoever) that noumenon is itself comprised of 100% pure, uncut, "objective reality".
Then what meaning is there in conceptualizing that which is beyond our ability to comprehend? How do we even conceptualize that which is beyond our capacity to comprehend in the first place?
Or an inevitable consequence of factors we can never fully know.
"Fully know" suggests incomplete knowledge. Is there "knowledge" beyond us? (And I'm not talking about the yet to be known.)
It sounds like you are simply jumping into the "objectivity" bandwagon because you don't like the smell of "subjectivity".Please explain how "logic" makes one more coherent than the other.
On the contrary. As I've mentioned before, I lean toward subjective idealism. I very much like the smell of subjectivity. I just don't conflate "independent" with "isolated" unless we're controlling for one or the other.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Your proposal, DNA = personhood = human rights.(IFF) your cancerous tumor is granted human rights (THEN) it has the right to an attorney.In the same way, a landlord is not allowed to cut power and water for tenants who fail to pay their rent.
Now the dispute is "what are human rights"?
If the cancer threatens its host, and it does, then the host can defend itself by effectively ending the threat.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
No one disputes this. But it's still not part of the inception of human development. Much like boiling an egg, I need the egg, but selecting the egg doesn't mean that I'm actually boiling it.I'm pretty certain that if you fail to select a viable human egg and a viable human sperm, you will fail to produce a viable blastocyst.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
By assuming a limit to what we can know, we are necessarily positing the existence of that which we can't know. It ceases to be an abstract placeholder and becomes a logically coherent existence in and of itself. This is not to be confused with what we've yet to know which will involve either the creation of new abstracts or the re-rationalization of old ones. Thus, we either concede that all knowledge is subjective--or to go even further "created"--or that there is such a thing as the objective, and logic is our bridge.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
And if we do, how would that undermine my argument that its host bears it no obligation?(IFF) we adopt a DNA standard of personhood (AND) a cancerous tumor grows by making copies of its own distinct DNA code (THEN) the cancerous tumor must be considered a person.
Created:
Posted in:
You appear to define "human development" as limited to "sperm meets egg" until "lowered into incinerator" and you seem to be disregarding a number of critical prerequisites.In order to understand "human development" you must account for all of the factors that contribute to human propagation.
Appear is synonymous with seem, and seem is not an argument; and I don't disagree with you that understanding the factors contributes to the understanding of human development. But we're not discussing the comprehension of human development; we're discussion its inception. And merely selecting an egg and selecting a sperm is not a part of it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
But that's exactly the point.The cancerous tumor has no legal recourse, no voice, no advocate to protect its existence from being extinguished by the tyrannical human it lives inside.
And what argument does this point serve?
Please explain what you believe are the critical distinctions between the two.I would say I'm using "determines" as a synonym for "is the sole deciding factor" not "proportional or measurable by a common standard".(A) (IFF) DNA is the sole deciding factor of human-rights (THEN)...(B) (IFF) DNA is proportional or measurable by a common standard to human-rights (THEN)...Pick one, or create your own paraphrase.
So then why are you inferring from my argument that "any creature with 97% DNA matching a human should be granted 97% human rights"?
You proposed that personhood is determined by unique DNA.
No, I didn't. I answered affirmatively to this question of yours:
Are you suggesting that DNA determines personhood? Y/N
I haven't once mentioned unique. I did however mention distinct.
This DNA standard is impractical.I am proposing a more practical standard.Please feel free to modify and or paraphrase and or criticize the logic of this proposal and or propose an entirely new standard of personhood.
Your substantiating your biomass standard will suffice.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
We don't know how "rare" it is, because we don't test for it.
Fair enough. Rarely reported case.
Although it does seem to contradict your DNA = person AXIOM.
Seem is not an argument; and it doesn't contradict my argument at all. If we were to entertain that personhood is commensurate with DNA similarity, they are still apart of one's person. If one cell has a dispute with another, then let them take it to court or preferably hire a private mediator.
I'll accept your preferred definitions and or common dictionary references.
I'm asking you for your definitions because I'd rather not presume that you're conflating commesurate with determine, especially when your argument operates on "tiered" rights standard.
If the food that I eat is converted into fuel for a mass of cells in my body, then those cells are part of my person
Substantiate how this relates to constituting personhood.
Every necessary event that led to the moment of your birth is integral to your existence.
I am not disputing this. However, human development isn't concerned with the plethora of choices and experiences that shapes one's existence. It's concerned with the processes that create, change, and end the human body.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
No, my counterfactual is that i know what I know, I know what I can know, and I don't know what I can't know, making it meaningless. I don't need to quantify it by presuming everything.And your (counter-factual) position is that you do know everything?
Please qualify this statement.
We'll never know outside (assuming an "outside") our capacity to perceive (redundant.)
NOUMENON makes absolutely no claims about content or scope.It is merely a place-holder for "beyond perception and beyond comprehension".
And that fundamentally presumes "beyond perception and beyond comprehension"; that's scope.
You can't comprehensively study and perfectly map a tower that you're trapped inside.
Assuming that you're trapped inside the tower which necessitate that you have an understanding of its scope.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Case closed. You have stated that DNA determines human rights.And therefore, (IFF) DNA determines human rights (THEN) any creature with 97% DNA matching a human should be granted 97% human rights.
Try again. First, define determine and commensurate.
Just watch the first 43 seconds, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFf5gKiTGlo
Where does it state that her children were taken away? The father states that he knew they'd be taken away, and the mother felt that they'd be taken away, but they don't establish that they were taken away.
Not all of your cells have identical DNA coding. The human chimera example closes the case on that.
A rare case.
The fact that viruses and cosmic rays can damage your DNA coding also confirms that "not all of your cells have identical DNA coding".
And in the advent of damaging this code, it creates a new distinction. While all your cells may not be identical, they are part of your person. And if one wants to excise any of them with impunity, my arguments wouldn't reject it.
Gene expression is interesting, but I fail to see how it's relevant to this discussion.
Then once again, what would be a more practical standard in determining personhood?
Another interesting side-note about DNA uniformity, mothers get contaminated with human cells from their embryos.
They are free to excise those cells at their leisure.
I'll consider that a "dropped argument".
It's not a "dropped" argument; it's a "nonsense" argument. Human Development beginning at fertilization is tautological. You know that; I know that. Debating it further is regressive.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Are you suggesting that DNA determines personhood? Y/N
Y.
Are you suggesting that personhood determines human rights? Y/N
Y.
I can prevent someone from dying and I can stop someone from dying. It's essentially the same thing.To prevent is to put an end to its ever occurring, which does not necessitate that it occurs. No one disputes that humans are necessary; no one disputes that sperm and ovum are necessary.You're making a distinction without a difference.But that's not the inception of human development.The "inception of human development" is the selection process which begins with survival instinct.They're essential inputs, no doubt. But the catalyst is fertilization.The catalyst is human survival instinct.Your start-point appears to be arbitrary.
I'm not arguing over this, anymore.
This is going to vary from one person to the next and would require nearly catastrophic testing to verify.
Why catastrophic?
DNA uniqueness is an impractical standard by which to determine personhood.
What would be a more practice standard to determine personhood?
Amazing. Where does it state that the children were forcibly removed?
Mutations in the DNA have also been noted with the introduction of certain viruses into the body. In fact, this is a method by which “gene therapy” is being studied in depth. Scientists and medical researchers are using small virus cells, usually of common illnesses like colds, to change small parts of gene expression, since it is known that viruses may rewrite some of the DNA code. [LINK]
But doesn't the link primarily focus on gene expression (e.g. tight skin, hair color, brain cells, etc...) especially when it mentions that the codes "aren't working well" as opposed to the codes being distinct? Even when it makes reference to the code, it makes an immediate mention of its expression. Other than the mention of viruses being able to rewrite the code, isn't most of its conclusions derived from gene expression? (I'm genuinely curious.)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Please be more specific. I'm not sure I can break this down any further based on the dictionary definitions of "objective" and "subjective".
Why is subjective equivalent to "sample-biased"? Put emphasis on describing the sample in this context.
Please be more specific.
Why does bias "contaminate" the method?
Yes, necessarily isolated from it.
Why?
Please provide an example.
The existence of an atom. Our understanding, our conception, our representation are epistemologically subjective--that much is true. But it is possible that our subjective representation is in fact ontologically/metaphysically objective. Of course, we'll never know, making it epistemologically insignificant, but its existence bearing no contingency on our representation--that is, should one posit or assume an existence independent from subjective concept--remains unaffected.
Noumenon is epistemologically significant because it demarcates the actual boundary of your epistemology.
Noumenon isn't merely a tautological consequence of epistemology. It's an argument of its own using the premise "we don't know everything." It first assumes "everything," if not its content, its scope (counterintuitive.)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I'll accept your definitions.I don't think either of these terms are currently in dispute.
I'll leave it to you. Your response to my saying that I never stated that rights were commensurate to DNA content spurred you to invoke the law of excluded middle to conclude DNA determines rights. Elaborate.
You're hair-splitting.
No, I'm not. Prevent is different from stop. Stop is to end an occurrence, which necessitates that it occurs. To prevent is to put an end to its ever occurring, which does not necessitate that it occurs. No one disputes that humans are necessary; no one disputes that sperm and ovum are necessary. But that's not the inception of human development. They're essential inputs, no doubt. But the catalyst is fertilization.
How would you do this? Redefine "individual human" as 99.99999999999% matching DNA?
Not necessary; the only thing needed is to determine what is exclusively his.
In one of these cases, a woman's womb did not match her standard DNA swab and this resulted in her children being forcibly removed.
Reference?
I explicitly said code.
Reference?
All life? Citizen and non-citizen? Homed and homeless? Criminal and non-criminal?
Yes.
What you are talking about would necessarily be more specific. "Unborn human life is precious" actually means very little, since "precious" is a QUALITATIVE-VALUE-JUDGEMENT.The only way it informs the so-called-pro-life case is IF IT APPLIES TO ALL HUMANS.
Who says that it doesn't apply to everyone? Your argument is that this qualitative value judgement is immediately afforded with legal protection/preventions/preservations based on the premise alone, "all life is precious."
According to what theory? Now you're just making things up out of thin air.Exactly what part of "all human life is precious" explains this?
Retributive? Proportionality? What part of punishment is not recompense to the abstract "collective" called society? (I.e. making amends, "debt to society, etc.") Of which crimes do capital offenses mostly comprise? I'm not "making things up"; I'm deducing based on what's given.
You need to modify your AXIOM.
It's not my axiom. I didn't say "all life was precious"; you're the one alleging that this axiom is fundamental to the pro-life position. We are discussing how they mean it.
Ok, so, "all human life is precious" means that we should sell people as slaves? Is that what you think it means?
Non sequitur.
I'm trying to be generous, but you're all over the map.
No, I am most certainly not. You allege that their sustaining the motto "all life is precious" is contradictory to their sustaining support for the death penalty, deportation, homelessness, etc. Mind you, I'm entertaining this as a thought experiment, and has nothing to do with the dynamic of the involved parties for which the terms, "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are merely rhetorical. Nevertheless, it's an interesting thought experiment that challenges consistency. But I've been operating at your pace. You suddenly introduce the motto "all human life is precious," so I entertain it; you then introduce positions which are tangentially related to said motto (i.e. death penalty, deportation, homelessness) and allege pro-lifers sustain them, so I entertain them. But don't assert that I'm all over the place especially when my contention was that the pro-lifers were more consistent based on their belief that the parent sustains an obligation to its offspring's welfare from the conception to some arbitrarily selected age of dependence, where as pro-choicers sustain that this obligation exists only after it's born.
Please explain how you would make the statement "all human life is precious" more specifically about "anti-abortion" and less about preserving human life.Because it seems to me that "pro-life" means "pro-life for immigrants" and "pro-life for criminals" and "pro-life for foreign non-combatants" and "pro-life for the homeless".Pro-life doesn't even specify human life. Don't kill pigs and chickens and cows either you PRO-LIFER?!
It doesn't matter how it seems to you. It matters only what "pro-life" means in the context of their movement and their imperatives. If you want to petition that they change their names, then go ahead and do so, but it won't change anything fundamental no more than it would the pro-choicers if I were to extend the literal description of "pro-choice" to anarchy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
"all human life is precious" strongly implies that all human life should be protected and preserved at all costs, even and especially at the cost of personal privacy.
Interesting how that projection conveniently suits the context of the pro-life argument. I do not believe it means that which you state. I believe that the motto "all life is precious" is an argument for the inclusion of unborn children as it concerns the scope of legal protections afforded everyone.
This AXIOM is fine and dandy as an axiom, however if it was taken seriously and to its logical conclusions, then no criminals would be executed, and in-fact all criminals would be given top-notch healthcare and their personal security would be protected at all costs.
Assuming of course, they mean it how you describe it. At this point, I'm only willing to concede that it's emotive language.
(IFF) you want to argue that "all life is precious" simply means "some lives are valued by some people some of the time and other lives are sometimes more or less valuable than others depending on the situation" - (THEN) - ALL BETS ARE OFF AND YOUR "AXIOM" IS A SHAM.
In the case of the death penalty, the convict's life is recompense for the lives presumably taken. The only thing worth the lives of those taken, is the life of the taker. Again, I don't agree. But that is the logic. You however, are conflating preservation with value.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Christen
I just thought of a solution that I believe the people who are both pro-minimum wage, and anti-minimum wage, would like.We will do what drafterman wants, which is to keep increasing the minimum wage to keep up with costs of living, but, we will also make it so that employees can sign a legal waiver (which can be renewable) to temporarily waive their right to be paid that minimum, and legally allow employers to pay them, specifically, an amount lower than the minimum wage if the employer chooses to do so. That way, employees can still be paid a living/survivable wage if they want/need the extra money, while we also ensure that nobody accidentally gets priced out of the market who still wants to keep their job.
The issue with this, Christen, is that it would essentially price out the existing minimum-wage employees. Rather than nullify the effect of the minimum wage, it would instead reverse it, seeing immense underemployment among those who are employed at the minimum. Your notion is to legalize the already existing under the table employment of below-minimum wage workers, but employers naturally regulate the volume of their hires so as to not rouse suspicion. Make it legal, and employees working at the minimum would be a moot point. (And, I'm all for that, by the way.)
Just an aside, this is the reason the narrative surrounding "wage-gap" is nonsensical. If women were performing equal work for less pay, they would have priced men out the market decades ago. If one were to make below minimum-wage work legal, then it doesn't matter if it's tiered, the trend would move toward below minimum wage work (of course this is in context of low-skilled labor.)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
The qualifier "all human life" necessarily includes convicts.
Yes. Doesn't inform the contradiction, though.
This is an irrelevant RED-HERRING (moot). The qualifier "all human life" necessarily includes convicts.
It is certainly not a red-herring. You introduced the alleged hypocrisy of sustaining a position of pro-life and pro-death penalty. Scrutinizing the context under which the death penalty occurs is not at all irrelevant, whether you accept the position or not.
#1 it isn't a deterrent.
Yes it is. Whether it's an effective one, is another matter.
destroying life doesn't prove it's precious.
Yes it does. It actually informs mitigating accountability when placed under duress. Life is presumed "precious," and therefore the threat to it mitigates any measure you take to defend/preserve it.
#3 it does undermine the axiom "all human life is precious".
You have to demonstrate this.
Isn't the statement "all human life is precious" functionally identical to "no human life should be ended"?
No. Case in point: I undertake a transplant surgery that will kill me, but save my sister's life. Does that make my life not "precious"? Would it make her life less precious if she were decline my undertaking the surgery?
OTHERWISE, HOW DOES IT INFORM ABORTION?
My presumption would be that they don't believe the privacy of its mother is commensurate to that of the value of her child's life. I disagree. But they sustain this consistently throughout its development until the child is no longer dependent.
THIS IS THE EXACT SAME SCENARIO YOU OBJECTED TO REGARDING PARENTS ABANDONING THEIR CHILDREN.
No it isn't. I never objected to it. I've already stated that while I'm against abortion, I am pro-choice. And the only way to consistently sustain this position is to remove all responsibility all parents have to all children. My criticism is that those who claim they are pro-choice do no sustain the same, making them pro-abortion, not pro-"choice."
BY DEPORTING (abandoning) HUMAN LIFE INTO LIFE THREATENING SITUATIONS, YOU ARE NOT PROTECTING THEIR PRECIOUS HUMAN LIVES.
But if they aren't here legally, then they are not afforded the "protection" right?
If they cared about the homeless half as much as they care about zygotes, then there would be no homeless people.
You don't know that.
Please explain how bombing the middle-east "saves precious human lives".
That isn't what I said.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
A child's genome is an extension of another.(IFF) DNA determines if a being is "its own person" personhood is determined by DNA (AND) legal (or moral or axiomatic) Rights are determined by personhood (THEN) DNA determines Rights.So by the law of excluded middle, DNA determines Rights (at least in your proposal).
Define commensurate; and define determine.
Stopping the selection process de facto stops development.
It doesn't "stop" it. It prevents it from occurring.
In the same way, if I sterilize you, then I am de facto killing your unborn children.
You can't kill children who haven't been conceived. You can only put an end to the prospect. The prospect of children is not the same as children.
What is your suggestion?
It's already in the part you quoted.
Genetic coding contains errors. Every time you copy 725 megabytes of data, single bit errors are prone to occur. Also, environmental toxins and cosmic radiation can cause errors (mutations) in a human's genetic code.
Are the distinctions a result of a dissimilar code or dissimilar expression?
The fact that a blastocyst/zygote/embryo/fetus is 99.99999% biomass of the mother does not change in either scenario.
We weren't talking about biomass. If that's what you meant, then that's another matter.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Development of the blastocyst begins when a sperm and egg are selected for fertilization.Genetic selection is pre-requisite and therefore integral and inseparable from the "development-process".
No one's arguing against the necessity of a selected egg and sperm. But that doesn't mean that the development starts when they are selected. You should already know that this is tautological.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Twins and clones may have variations (errors) in their genetic coding.But the same it true for all cells in your body.Not all sperm have identical genetic coding.Not all eggs have identical genetic coding.Tumors also contain genetic variations (errors).How much variation constitutes a "distinct-genetic-organism" in your opinion?Do all "distinct-genetic-organisms" deserve equal rights?
Then the description of the genome needs expansion to include that which constitutes one's person.
And do sperm cells, egg cells, tumors have different genetic coding or different genetic expressions?
And once again, it's not about "deserving rights"; it's creating a distinction between the zygote and its mother. If we were to consider your statements earlier, then your claiming that the blastocyst is 99% its mother is completely meaningless.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Seem is not an argument; and they're not being ignored. Copulation these days isn't a prerequisite. And even assuming copulation, development doesn't start until the egg is fertilized by the sperm.#1 the "first-phase-of-human-development" seems to be ignoring the prerequisites (sperm and egg and healthy parents and copulation opportunity).
#2 the blastocyst and zygote and fetus development stages are virtually identical to that of monkeys and mice.
Okay.
If DNA is your primary guiding light, then all mammals should be protected with 97% of the fervor that humans deserve.
DNA makes it its own person. I never said that Rights were commensurate to DNA content. My mention of the genome was in response to your statement that zygote/embryo/fetus was akin to sperm cells, and the like, where the former has its own genome, and the latter is an extension of another.
The key hypocrisy of "pro-lifers" is when they say "all human life is precious" but then they support the death penalty, they support deporting humans into life threatening situations, they do nothing to protect vulnerable homeless people and they are very often gung-ho supporters of military action which by its very definition does not support the axiom "all human life is precious".
I don't see how the statement "all human life is precious" contradicts the death penalty. Those who are on death row (usually) have committed horrendous crimes typically involving homicides. In order to create a deterrent, they take away what's most precious: life. It doesn't undermine it at all. In fact, it informs it. If the motto instead were, "no life should be ended," then you'd have a point, assuming they sustain both a pro-life and pro-death penalty position.
The deportation point doesn't make sense (it's not that their lives aren't precious, it's that they want to submit them to the same legal paradigm in which they are subject.) You don't know that they don't help the homeless, and military is seen as a means of defense.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Directly below. You seem to be bouncing back and forth between legality and some sort of intrinsic "moral responsibility".
Seem is not an argument; and the difference between the two is moot. We're discussing arguments in the context of both the pro-life and pro-choice positions. Their goals are clearly legal; their motivations are moral.
Axioms immediately embodied based on what exactly?
Based on nothing else; they're axioms.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
How do they enforce this?By making copulation reporting mandatory.
If an unregistered copulation results in a pregnancy, then appropriate fines and or other punishments and or sanctions would be levied.
How does that make any sense? It's counterintuitive. That would make them accountable to the State (not that they aren't already) rather than accountable to the unborn child, especially if they have to pay an "appropriate" fine. That's not part of the pro-life argument as I understand it, nor is it any a logical extension.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
But not legal accountability?
Where did you get that?
Are we in agreement on this?
No. I'm not arguing that citizenship creates rights or accountability. Rights are axioms which are immediately embodied in all interaction, not successive of one particular form (citizenship.)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Yes it does.Objective = unbiasedSubjective = biased and the most fundamental bias of all is sample-bias.
Substantiate this claim.
No.They are intrinsically linked, not necessarily "the same thing".I'm pointing out that your desire is prerequisite to your method.Your method means nothing and can never happen without your prerequisite desire.Your desire is biased, shaped by your personal feelings and whims.This bias contaminates your method.Desire is like the battery of a robot.Without desire (a battery) then the robot (your method) is dead (moot).
Explain.
WTF.NOUMENON = THE UNKNOWN
Somewhat, not exactly. Noumenon is independent from ontological subjectivity, not necessarily isolated from it. It is possible to represent an object in Noumenon, for example, objectively as a matter of coincidence. Of course, in order for us to gauge this accuracy we'd of course have to isolate it, but since we're discussing Noumenon, this coincidental representation is ontologically objective. This obviously is epistemologically insignificant.
Do you know everything?
I don't need to know everything; I need to know only the scope of everything.
I'm going to guess not.
That's biased.
Are you kidding me?The only way to avoid the "subject's perspective" is for you to not be a subject with a perspective.
Who said anything about "avoiding"? Embrace it; incorporate it. To be ontologically subjective is not synonymous with to be inaccurate or epistemologically subjective.
The only way for you to not have a "subject's perspective" would be for you to know all things and see all things with 100% equal clarity.
In order for you to know that I don't know everything with 100% equal clarity, you'd have to some sense of 100%. Do you?
Are you the Kwisatz Haderach?
One can only keep it secret for so long...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
What about twins and clones? Their genome isn't distinct.
How does a distinct genome make something worthy of life?
It doesn't make them "worthy of life"; it constitutes having their own person.
Pick one and stick to it.
I already did. My arguments focus primarily on accountability.
Most of the pro-choicers claim god told them not to kill teeny-tiny fish-like cell masses because they are the same as newborn babies.
You mean, "pro-lifers." And given that the zygote marks the first phase of human development, they're "claims" that they are more like newborn babies is more consistent than claims they are not.
Because if we are going to prevent every teeny-tiny fish-like cell mass from dying, we need to register them as citizens. Every single one.
If the argument is that every person is responsible for the welfare of their offspring, whether it be sustaining custody or transferring custody to another, and "citizenship" creates accountability, then yes, registration would be necessary.
Then there should be a medical examination (investigation) of every miscarriage to determine if there is cause for suspicion.It should be treated exactly like if a child dies in someone's private residence.Did that child die of natural causes? Was that child's death preventable?Personal privacy goes completely out the window. Refusing to be examined would be considered obstruction of justice.
How would any public entity know of her miscarriage without the medical examination in the first place?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Your desire dictates what you validate.Your desire is a logical prerequisite to you validating anything.If your desire to validate is not OBJECTIVE then it contaminates your validation with SUBJECTIVITY.
So you're conflating my desire with my method?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
RESPONSIBLE AT CONCEPTION + NOT RESPONSIBLE UNTIL IMPLANTATION + RESPONSIBLE DURING GESTATION + RESPONSIBLE (CITIZENSHIP) AFTER BIRTH + ARBITRARY DEADLINE OF 18 YEARS.And, PRO-CHOICE = NOT RESPONSIBLE AT CONCEPTION + NOT RESPONSIBLE DURING GESTATION + RESPONSIBILITY (CITIZENSHIP) BEGINS AT BIRTH + ARBITRARY DEADLINE OF 18 YEARS.IN THIS PARTICULAR LIGHT THEY ARE EQUALLY COHERENT. THEY BOTH HAVE ARBITRARY START AND ARBITRARY END DATES.
Pro-lifers are generally against IVF, so your second point does not suffice at all. Here's an example from the Massachusetts Citizens for Life:
What is the Pro-life position regarding In Vitro Fertilization?From a pro-life viewpoint, IVF is not permissible given a proper respect for human life. The process is far too wasteful of human life, resulting in thousands of embryos which are destroyed, either by chance in the womb or on purpose when they are no longer needed for the treatment.
The process also encourages a mentality which views people as things to be bought or sold as wanted which is inconsistent with a proper pro-life view. No pro-lifer should ever view another human being as merely instrumental to the satisfaction of another’s desires.
So it would be: Responsible at conception; responsible until implantation; responsible during gestation; responsible after birth; arbitrary deadline of 18 years.
ALL MISCARRIAGES SHOULD BE TREATED AS POTENTIAL MURDER/MANSLAUGHTER CASES, AND ALL HUMAN PRIVACY SHOULD BE ERADICATED,
Not all deaths have cases made out of them. If there's no cause for suspicion, usually determined by an initial medical examination, then the prospect of a case is scrapped. If she forgoes this examination then there's nothing the pro-lifers can do. (Not that I would suggest they do anything to begin with.)
HE STATE SHOULD BE NOTIFIED EVERY TIME TWO PEOPLE COPULATE IN ORDER TO MAKE SURE THE POSSIBLY RESULTING EMBRYO IS NOT MALNOURISHED OR MISTREATED OR INTENTIONALLY OR UNINTENTIONALLY KILLED, THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE STATE DOES NOT END AT BIRTH AND ALL HOMES SHOULD BE MONITORED BY CAMERAS AND MICROPHONES IN ORDER TO DETECT CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT.
Now, you're delving into de facto measures rather than de jure measures which merely ascribe accountability.
AND MORE THAN THAT, ALL LIVING MASSES OF CELLS WITH 100% HUMAN DNA SHOULD BE KEPT ALIVE AT ALL COSTS INCLUDING CANCER CELLS AND GENETICALLY MODIFIED PIGS. LETTING ANY LIVING MASS OF CELLS WITH 100% HUMAN DNA DIE IS MURDER AND OR MANSLAUGHTER.
Except their (cancer cells, sperm cells, etc.) genome isn't distinct.
FOR PRO-CHOICE TO BE TRULY COHERENT, ALL CITIZENS SHOULD HAVE THEIR RIGHTS AND PRIVACY RESPECTED BY THE STATE.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------YOUR OBJECTION TO RELEASING CUSTODY OF A CHILD IGNORES THE CITIZENSHIP OF THAT CHILD.BEFORE THE BLASTOCYST IS GRANTED CITIZENSHIP, IT HAS NO HUMAN RIGHTS.A CITIZEN MUST BE ABANDONED AT A SANCTIONED FACILITY BECAUSE A CITIZEN HAS HUMAN RIGHTS.
No. For it to be coherent, all citizen sovereignty should be respected, period. Whether it be a fetus or an infant, the parent should not be obligated to its sustenance even before she transfers responsibility through adoption. If she owed the fetus nothing before it was born, then it's merely arbitrary that she'd owe the fetus some sustenance after it's born.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Your desire is BOTH a REACTION and a PREJUDICE.
Once again, what does my desire to validate have to do with validation?
You are 100% paralyzed without REACTION and PREJUDICE.
Paralyzed? How do you mean?
That is incorrect.Definitions are required.YOU = HUMANHUMAN = A MAMMAL WITH A LIMITED PERCEPTION AND BRAIN CAPACITYSUBJECTIVE = SAMPLE-BIASEDTRUE = QUANTIFIABLE AND OR LOGICALLY NECESSARY
subjective does not equal sample-biased. This presumes the existence of metaphysical reality (noumenon,) one which you'd have to substantiate before incorporating it as fundamental to the description of subjective. Subjective can be easily described by thinking of it as a contraction of "subject" and "perspective." "Subject's perspective." While the tautology of supposing the subject's subjectivity is ontologically subjective (a priori) it does not exclude the epistemological foundation on which it is contingent. (Logically, to state that nothing can be objective is tantamount to stating that even word "objective" is a self-contained description, which describes nothing. And if you argue that objective is merely a logical necessity of supposing subjectivity, then you're only making my point about epistemological objectivity.)
Second, true does not equal logically necessary. Logic connects truths. It does not create them. It therefore cannot serve as the premise of truth. Logic is a function of truth (L=f(T)) where truth(s) is the independent variable.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Abortions NOT performed at a medical facility have a statistically high risk of causing catastrophic internal bleeding.So while there may or may not be some LEGAL impediment to self-mutilation, THERE IS A VERY PRACTICAL IMPEDIMENT.
I know. But we're obviously not discussing de facto impediments, but de jure impediments. A woman can abandon a baby in a dumpster in Atlanta, but if she were to successfully relocate to North Korea, she could practically escape the legal responsibility to her infant without issue. The point is she has a responsibility to her infant dictated by the descriptions of the State. If she were truly her own sovereign territory, she would not have to abide by State dictates and she could abandon an infant much in the same way she can abandon her fetus.
This is the reason I continue to argue that the pro-life arguments generally are more consistent than those of the pro-choice. The pro-life position argues this responsibility persists from conception to mid or late adolescence (though, I don't deny that cut-off is arbitrary as well.) The pro-choice position however arguse that there's no responsibility (zygote/embryo/fetus) then responsibility (infant-->late adolescence) then back to no responsibility (late adolescent-->adulthood.) The main difference is the pro-life argument is a function of dependence. The pro-choice, however, is one neither of dependence, nor of "gyno-sovereignty." It's an inconsistent argument. The only way to reconcile is to completely remove the obligation a parent bears its child, regardless of its age.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
If natural selection is the primary drive behind the diversity of species we would expect those kinds of behaviors. Natural selection has explanatory powerNatural selection is a sufficient explanation. Perhaps you misunderstand what I mean.
You're supposing the truth of your premise and attempting to make an inductive argument using the reasoning from natural selection. But you're not providing much explanation. You state:
Also natural selection can predict amd explain at least these four kinds of traits/behaviors.Those that promote species interest (sometimes manifesting as altruism/empathy).Those that promote self interest as individual survival is necessary for a viable species.Those that are incidental but not detrimental to species or individual survival.Those which once promoted species or individual survival but which no longer serve their purpose in an organism's current environment.
But you don't elaborate. You merely repeat and then harken back to your initial claim that Natural Selection can explain. Please elaborate on the points you made.
As for objectivity please give an example of a proven non tautological objective truth. We can go from there.
As I told 3RU7AL, truth is a value. When I state "you are subjective," it requires no values of true or false; it simply is. You can argue that the rationalization is ontologically subjective. That does not exclude it from being epistemologically objective so long as it meets the demands of its rationalization.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
It is impossible to establish validity independently from individual reaction and/or prejudice.For example, if you want to validate something, you (an individual) are reacting (a reaction) to something (either an idea or a particular phenomena) you desire to validate and your reaction is based on your previous experiences (prejudice).
Yes, but you're not connecting the validation to my reaction--only my desire to validate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Please be more specific.Are you suggesting that medical facilities are NOT licensed by the state?
No. Provide substantiation that the facility where she carries out the abortion has to be a licensed medical facility.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
you want to abdicate responsibility for a blastocyst/zygote/embryo/fetus (THEN) you must visit a properly equipped and sanctioned facility.
Substantiate that the properly equipped and sanctioned facility is subject to the dictates of the State.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Validity established independently from individual reaction and/or prejudice.Please present your definition of "objectivity".
No human can avoid SAMPLE-BIAS.
Your premise?
TRUTH is merely TAUTOLOGICAL (conditional upon acceptance of any particular definition).TAUTOLOGICAL =/= OBJECTIVE
Truth is a value statement; self-interest isn't. It falls within qualia only if one presumes to qualify said self-interest. Now you can argue that the logical framework which maximizes self-interest is subjective especially with language such as "maximize" and I don't deny that. But it doesn't change the argument that self-interest "is" is ontologically objective, and any logical framework rationalizing it while being ontologically subjective, would still be epistemologically objective so long as it satisfies the rationalization.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
You're moving the goal posts.It is not the mother's responsibility to procure the safety of their abandoned child.It is merely the mother's responsibility to locate a sanctioned drop-off-point.Your assertion would be like saying that people can't throw away their garbage whenever they want, because they need to drive-all-the-way to the nearest sanctioned city dump and then follow proper procedure (or pay someone to do it for them).
There are no moving goal posts. It would be like my saying that disposing garbage is under my sovereign jurisdiction, but I'm still obligated to the dictates of the City Dump. That's the reason it's necessary for you to include the qualifier "sanctioned." Once again, could she do this at an abandoned church, hospital, or firehouse? Why must she transfer responsibility (in accordance to the dictates of the State) and not simply relinquish it (like abortion)?
Sure, but the mothers "responsibility" ends the moment she drops the kid off at a sanctioned drop-off-point. Easy-peasy.
But she still has the responsibility however long it's sustained. What responsibility does she bear when she has an abortion?
It is merely the mother's responsibility to locate a sanctioned drop-off-point.
...in order to transfer her presupposed responsibility to her infant's welfare.
You're basically asserting that because you have failed to identify any coherent framework or principle, that there must be no coherent framework or principle (therefore arbitrary).
No. It's arbitrary; therefore, it's an incoherent framework. (Not an appeal to ignorance.)
If your claim (of "inconsistent") is regarding a particular perceived inconsistency, please be more specific.
The responsibility she bears her infant child as well as the responsibility she bears at the prospect of a late-term abortion countermands your argument that the proverbial woman's body is a legally recognizable sovereign territory.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
This is not necessarily true.Most jurisdictions have exceptions to child abandonment in the form of safe haven laws. Safe Haven Laws allow mothers to safely abandon their newborn infants in safe locations - such as churches, hospitals, and fire stations - without fear of being charged with the crime of child abandonment. [*]
This is necessarily true. Safe haven laws presume the transfer of responsibility even if the transfer doesn't happen in person because those safe havens are legally recognized corporations/institutions. And the premises are part of their corporate entity. But could she do the same at an abandoned church, hospital, or firehouse?
I'm not sure how this is considered an extraordinary case.The time, labor, and resources of all citizens is subject to the jurisdiction and arbitration (whim) of the state.Pretty much the only thing they don't already own (capriciously confiscate (take ownership of) at will) is your body and whatever might be inside it.
Hence, arbitrary, more so inconsistent.
Created: