Explain Your Reasoning.

FutureIncoming · Oct 1, 2005

To Felicity:
I find that in working on my reply to Message #475, I will need to reference a big block of text first posted elsewhere. It was about a distinction between "human life" and "human person". Since I'm seeing that your definition of person attempts to make a person out of every human life, I'm going to post that particular block of text here, separately from the main reply.
=============

There is an argument that purports to show why it is not sensible to define "murder" as the killing of human life. It starts with the medical profession's goal of helping damaged humans to heal. The biological process of healing a wound (whether caused by accident or malice or surgery) involves regeneration, the production of new cells to replace lost cells. Certain parts of the body, like skin, naturally regenerate easily, while other parts, like the brain, regenerate poorly. Much research is being devoted to increase the abilities of body parts to regenerate and thereby become healed. There are plenty of animals in Nature with much better regenerative abilities than humans. For example, a starfish supposedly can be cut into pieces such that each piece can grow into a whole starfish. It is by studying/copying the biological processes responsible for that, that researchers expect to one day give any human the ability to, for example, regrow a lost arm. Now, what are the long-term consequences? Well, we could imagine a future day in which some accident decapitates someone, and proceed to two different scenarios. First, suppose the body is destroyed during the accident, but the head is rescued. Second, suppose the accident was such that the decapitated head died within minutes, before rescue arrived, but the body was saved. Now compare the two scenarios: In each, the surviving part of a human is very much alive, courtesy of advanced life-support equipment. And in both scenarios, regeneration science will allow the lost portion of an overall human body to be regrown. Next, the core of the argument involves considering these questions, "Will anyone object to the bodiless head being allowed to grow a new body?" and "Will anyone object to the headless body being allowed to grow a new head?" Human life is on the line in both scenarios, true, but the first scenario also features a surviving human mind, while the second does not. That is, while in the second scenario a head might indeed be grown, a complete education will also be required, and the resulting overall human being will inevitably be somewhat different from the one whose head had died. In the first scenario there is no such discontinuity in a human's existence. Human life would be saved in the second scenario, but a question remains as to whether or not there would be a moral obligation to do so.

{NOTE: Regeneration technology is not something to be found only in the far-distant future. This piece of the Future is Incoming much sooner than later! See:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1754008,00.html }

This question is, in a way, already fueling a political storm today, concerning humans who have experienced brain death. Their bodies are kept on life-support in the hope they might recover. The available evidence is that the patients cannot recover, due to so much of their brain tissue being dead, and it is only remotely likely that even advanced regeneration technology would restore the original minds whose existence depended upon those brains. As a result, even though the political storm still rages, many humans have prepared a Living Will to, in essence, ensure that they are declared entirely legally dead when their brains have been declared clinically dead. The "human life" that may still reside in each of their bodies is irrelevant to them. And the judicial system, when involved in cases where no Living Will existed, has so far tended to say essentially the same thing, that human life is not the key; the human mind is the key to defining a human being. This overall argument can fortify that conclusion by asking that a third future scenario be considered, in which the accident was so horrible that only an arm could be saved. Should it be given the chance to grow a new body and head? There is no technical difference between regrowing just a head, as in the second scenario, and regrowing most of a body along with the head, just as there would be little technical difference between the preceding and regenerating a dead brain only. Perhaps the core of the conflict is in "appearances". The brain-dead human on life-support looks fully human; the headless human is still mostly all there, appearance-wise, but an arm is just an arm, however-much it is perfectly human and perfectly alive. Yet none of the three have a living human mind, while in the first regeneration scenario the bodiless head is not just a piece of a mostly-incomplete human. Therefore the argument concludes that "murder" has to be defined in terms of killing a human-level mind. (It is also consistent with, for example, the killing of flies and other creatures never being called murder, while should we one day encounter equivalent mindful beings at/from other planets in the Universe, the definition is consistent with thinking any killing of them to be murder, too.) Therefore during most of a pregnancy, when a fetus has not developed the brainpower for a minimally human-level mind, however-muchly human its body is and appears, abortion cannot be murder, and can be morally permissible. Opponents to this view point out that there exists no consensus, morally speaking, for what constitutes a "minimally human-level mind." Certain philosophers have argued that compared to an adult human mind, newborn infants can be classified as falling below the intuitive standard, as would persons with severe, but not physically debilitating, mental retardation -- but this merely means it might be difficult to decide how much brainpower must be present before killing a human life starts to qualify as murder. It does not by one whit imply that abortion of a mostly-brainless fetus can qualify as murder.
=============

So, a living human arm on life-support is a person, eh?

Felicity · Oct 1, 2005

FutureIncoming said:
To Felicity:
I find that in working on my reply to Message #475, I will need to reference a big block of text first posted elsewhere. .......
=============
......

So, a living human arm on life-support is a person, eh?

Give it up already, FI....Your "big block ~~of text" are making you look like a :joke: .~~

Fantasea · Oct 1, 2005

FutureIncoming said:
FutureIncoming wrote: "Therefore availability of contraception DOES reduce total abortions. What we really need is more reliable contraception, so that that current 58% can go down some more."

Felicity wrote: "Abstinence works EVERY time it's tried."

{Grin} And in what way does abstinence fail to count as "more reliable contraception"? Do note that I left the possibilities open!

--Oh, just as a side note, for the humorously inclined, there is a certain famous story about an abstaining lady named Mary who got pregnant anyway, about 2000 years ago. Perhaps you've heard the tale? If true, well, then there really is NO perfect form of birth control! (Hmmmm...I've always wondered what would have happened if she had sought an abortion. Mere human desires vs Power of God? Hah! Which kind of puts a dent in one part of the anti-abortion argument. If God forbids abortion and is so powerful, then enforcement should be easy, yet where is it? Yes, I know what is likely to be said about that, but did you ever consider the possibility that God never did forbid abortion?)

The fundamental problem with the Bible is that it was written by humans.
God did NOT sit down and write it.
Humans CLAIMED to have been inspired by God, to write it.
Humans are often liars, however. Why should those claims be believed?
Sure, you can point to descriptions of miracles in the Bible, but humans who might be lying wrote those down, too!
EVERY objective analysis of the Bible notes that the early books, supposedly written by Moses, define the creation of a "theocracy", government of the people by the preachers for the preachers -- and Moses was the chief preacher, of course. This is actually admitted and spelled out in Deuteronomy 17:12 (KJV), "The man who acts presumptuously, by not obeying the priest who stands to minister there before the LORD your God, or the judge, that man shall die; so you shall purge the evil from Israel."

From the preceding, it is easy to conclude that the preachers who wrote the Bible put in as many self-serving things as they wanted. Even the First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea, in 325AD, which had the task of assembling the modern Bible from the many Books that had been written in prior centuries, was a bunch of preachers who VOTED on what to include and what to exclude.

And so a number of things are easily explained as consequences:
Kill the unbelievers/heretics: They do not tithe to the preachers, of course.
Be fruitful and multiply: Make lots of babies who will grow up to tithe to the preachers.
Prohibit abortion: The act does not promote births of people who will tithe to the preachers.
Prohibit homosexualtiy: The act does not promote births of people who will tithe to the preachers.
Prohibit mast_rbation: The act does not promote births of people who will tithe to the preachers.
Prohibit contraception: The act does not promote births of people who will tithe to the preachers.

(As a result, for centuries the wealthiest organization in the world was the Roman Catholic Church.)

What God, if exists, ACTUALLY thinks about such rules may be an entirely different thing, altogether. But how to find out?

It's about time you removed the mask and revealed your true face.

This is not at all about biology, but about hatred of the Roman Catholic Church.

If you are so intent on church bashing, why not start a separate thread devoted to that subject?

steen · Oct 1, 2005

Felicity said:
Do you live in a perfect world, steen?

I live in one where people make better decisions if they are educated.

Do you think a couple of teens gettin' all hot and sweaty live in a perfect world?

They live in a world where, if they are educated about contraception and have easy access, they are more likely to use it and use it correctly, and thus avoid an unwanted pregnancy and abortions.

And, of course, they are, if they are "hot and sweaty," much LESS likely to use abstinence, showing how truly hypocritical your arguments against sex-ed and contraception is.

here is your example of teens that are not using their head, yet you claim that abstinence-only is a valid version of sex-ed. So either you are lying when you talk about abstinence-only, or you are lying when you imply that teens don't think if they are "hot and sweaty." Which is it? Which one is where you are dishonest, where you lie?

I think it's a dream world! And don't come back with the nonsense about abstinence being "impractical"--I'm sure the Wright Brothers were told flying was "impractical." Abstinence works EVERY time it's tried.

<except, of course, when we are tyalking about "hot and sweaty" teens, right? After all, up above, you were trying to claim that they wouldn't remember "correct" use of contraception, and now you claim they will refrain from having sex when "hot and sweaty"?

As I said, at least one of these arguemtns of yours is flat-out dishonest. You talk out of both sides of your mouth, you are a habitual liar, who misrepresents and lie when it suits your argument.

prolifers sure are dishonest liars, as you are confirming.

Are you so sure about your "FACT" steen?--you better do some research Mr. doctor boy before you go advising any patients.

Ah, but I HAVE done the research, and you are simply misrepresenting again.

Yes, as I said, and which you are so dishonestly trying to deny, NFP failure rates are MUCH higher than other means of birth control. BCK has 0.1% yearly failure rate with perfect use and 3.0% failure with common use. Condoms have 3% failure rate with best use and about 20% failure with common use. NFP has 16% failure rate with perfect use and 45% failure with common use.

(Hatchert, Ra, Trussel, , et al. (1994) Contraceptive Technology, p. 113. NY: Irvington Publishers)

So yes, I do indeed know what I am talking about. Where is YOUR research? Or were you merely going to spew lies as it now is obvious that you usually do?

Again--I'd like to point out...YOU would be throwing out the big "L" word like mad if anyone else made such a boldly UNFACTUAL assertion!

So then it is good that I wasn't merely making assertion, but actually were dispensing actual facts. You should try it sometimes. Then you wouldn't have to be called on as the liar you are all the time.

I don't want "everybody" practicing NFP--only those in legal committed relationships.

"legal committed relationships"? Another euphemism? So you are saying that you want the number of married women seeking abortion from unwanted pregnancy to go even HIGHER than the 25% of all abortions it is now?

However...I think everyone should be armed with the knowledge of NFP so they can respect their bodies rather than medicating healthy functioning.

They should be armed with effective and accurate information of all aspects of reproductive issues instead of the censored, selective and false information you want to spew at them. Is there some special merit points in your particular religion for lying to kids? Why else would you want to lie to them?

steen · Oct 1, 2005

Felicity said:
So--in the definition of person--I am biased against calling non-persons, persons.

But "person" IS defined in Roe vs Wade as not including the unborn. Yet, you clearly do hold such an inclusion.
So you are again lying.

steen · Oct 1, 2005

Felicity said:
Give it up already, FI....Your "big block ~~of text" are making you look like a :joke: .~~

~~I noticed how you cowardly avoided dealing with the issue raised. Is that how dishonest prolifers deal with facts they can't handle, ignore them? Are ALL prolifers as dishonest as you are?~~

FutureIncoming · Oct 2, 2005

Felicity wrote: "Give it up already, FI...."

Nope. I posted a valid question, basically about where the line can be drawn between "human life" and "human person". If you can find any flaws in the data or in the logic, feel free to point them out. If you cannot, then YOU will be the one having to give up.

The fundamental problem with the anti-abortion postion is that it is based on arbitrary claims made millenia ago. They are trying to prop up something that is inherently unsupportable. You say "abortion is wrong" for a list of reasons, and yet EVERY SINGLE ONE of those reasons is flawed in one way or another. For example, the "it's immoral" reason doesn't work because morals are culturally arbitrary, not universal. For another example, the "God said so" reason not only cannot be proved, but quite simple logic, based on standard claims about the nature of God, indicates that God isn't the sort to make such a Rule. For another example, the "right to life" reason fails because there isn't any such right in Nature; it is purely an egotistical human invention for human political/arbitrary purposes. For another example, the "human life is valuable" reason is purely subjective (another creation of the human ego); not only isn't that reason objective, it isn't even fully supported by other actions of many of those who proclaim that reason (see the various minimum-wage messages). For another example, the "all undeveloped humans are persons" reason, which is the focus of your Message #475 and my Message #511 (with more to come) leads to the absurdity of proclaiming a severed/regenerating toe to be a person. PERHAPS I could use your failure to poke at the data and logic in Message #511 as great evidence why your supposedly "universally accurate" definition of a Person (in Message #475) is flawed. We shall see.

Got any more reasons? Bring 'em on! In the end, I am confident you will have no VALID reason to claim that abortion is wrong. Abortion MIGHT be truly wrong for you and various others personally, for particularly personal (and even different) reasons, but it most certainly will be wrong for anyone to arbitrarily declare to all, that abortion is wrong for them as well.

==============
I see that Fantasea The Quibbling Hypocrite has jumped to a stupid conclusion. Does he not know that "preacher" is incorrect terminology for teachers of Catholicism? Does he not know of the vast wealth that the Romans looted from the Temple of Solomon? Does he not wonder what riches have been accumulating for more than a thousand years in the main Muslim mosques? I chose the generic "preacher" for a reason. They all want you to pay them for (unasked!) telling you how to run your life. And -- especially since they disagree so often about "morals", and have caused about as many wars in History as politicians -- preachers mostly aren't needed, anyway. Here's the logic:
1. Jesus supposedly said, "If two or more are gathered in my Name, I will be present."
2. Various Eastern mystics have supposedly said, "If three or more gathered in my Name, I will be present." (Well, if they weren't as powerful as Jesus, that only makes sense.

3. God is more powerful than Jesus*, so only ONE needs to "gather" him/herself in God's Name, for God to be present. No preacher needed, to commune with God!
*OK, I know that some preachers claim Jesus and God are one, so two have to "gather". But of course they would say that, so that one of the two can often be a preacher! --Besides, even those preachers have also been known to contradict needing-two, simply by saying that God is always present, anyway.

To sum up my beef with churches: God is OK. Jesus is OK. Even many preachers are sometimes OK (usually when their mouths are shut and their hands aren't out). But Religions are mostly idiotic. All of them. The evidence of History makes it obvious, to anyone who bothers to look. Which is the main reason it is so easy to demolish religion-based arguments against abortion.

Make no mistake, I am in this Thread to utterly demolish all the anti-abortionist arguments. ALL of them.

Felicity · Oct 2, 2005

steen said:
prolifers sure are dishonest liars, as you are confirming.
Ah, but I HAVE done the research, and you are simply misrepresenting again.

Yes, as I said, and which you are so dishonestly trying to deny, NFP failure rates are MUCH higher than other means of birth control. BCK has 0.1% yearly failure rate with perfect use and 3.0% failure with common use. Condoms have 3% failure rate with best use and about 20% failure with common use. NFP has 16% failure rate with perfect use and 45% failure with common use.

(Hatchert, Ra, Trussel, , et al. (1994) Contraceptive Technology, p. 113. NY: Irvington Publishers)

Older study (1994) if it’s the same Hatcher mentioned in the study below...he or she may have been focusing on the cal;ander method of NFP that is not as reliable as more modern methods.... although in 1998—s/he said it could reach 99% effectiveness when used as a “postovulation” indicator and engaging in sex only at that time.

So yes, I do indeed know what I am talking about. Where is YOUR research? Or were you merely going to spew lies as it now is obvious that you usually do?

HERE YOU GO....

Principles & Practice
The Future of Professional Education in Natural Family Planning
http://jognn.awhonn.org/cgi/content/full/33/1/34

Four general methods of NFP are used and taught in the United States. The calendar rhythm and basal body temperature (BBT) methods are considered to be old methods, whereas the two so-called modern methods are referred to as the ovulation method (OM or cervical mucus only) and the symptothermal method (STM). The modern methods also are sometimes referred to as single and multiple indicator methods.

.......Modern variations of the calendar methods have recently been developed that stipulate a fixed number of days of fertility in the menstrual cycle (e.g., days 8–19) and the use of a simple bead-counting system to help women track their cycles. A recent study of 478 women users of the standard days method of NFP from three countries (Bolivia, Peru, and the Philippines) indicated that the fixed day method had a cumulative] probability of pregnancy of 4.75% with correct use and an 11.96% probability of pregnancy with typical use (Arevalo, Jennings, & Sinai, 2002 ).

.......In the first prospective effectiveness study of BBT, reported in 1968, 502 couples had a typical use effectiveness of 6.6 pregnancies per 100 woman-years when intercourse was confined to the post-BBT shift period (after the postovulatory rise in body temperature) and 19.3 pregnancies when intercourse occurred in both the pre- and postovulatory phases of the cycle (Marshall, 1968 ). Correct use of BBT only as a postovulatory method will result in a method effectiveness of close to 99% (Hatcher et al., 1998 ).

Both the single indicator, mucus-only methods, and the multiple indicator, symptothermal methods, were developed in the last half of the 20th century. Single indicator methods use the cyclical estrogenic changes of cervical mucus to determine the beginning, peak, and end of the fertile phase of the menstrual cycle. A five-country World Health Organization (WHO) study (1981) of 725 ovulation method users yielded a method-related pregnancy rate of 2.2% and a typical use pregnancy rate of 22.3%, of which 15.4% was due to conscious departure from the rules. There are a number of variants of the single indicator cervical mucus method, including a standardized form known as the Creighton Model (CrM) system and a simplified version, the Modified Mucus method. Researchers are investigating the effectiveness of a simple 2-day algorithm for the mucus-only system (2 consecutive dry days without mucus indicates an infertile state) in avoiding pregnancy (Jennings & Sinai, 2001 ; Sinai, Jennings, & Arevalo, 1999 ).

The combination of several natural indicators of fertility, including cervical mucus, BBT shift, calendar formulas, and cervical changes, are used in the various forms of the symptothermal methods (STMs). There are only a few comparative studies on NFP effectiveness. Some consider the STM to be more effective when used to avoid pregnancy than the single-indicator mucus method (Kambic, 2000 ). A recent European study that compared a double-check STM with a single-check STM found a 2.6% unintended pregnancy rate with the double-check and an 8.5% unintended pregnancy rate with the single-check method (Freundl, 1999 ). The double-check method involves use of a calendar day formula and the observation of cervical mucus to determine the beginning of the fertile period and two biological markers to determine the end of the fertile phase (i.e., the peak in cervical mucus and temperature changes). The single-check method uses one biological indicator (cervical mucus) to determine the beginning of the fertile period and one indicator (temperature) to determine the end of the fertile period.
.......

Few health care professionals have in-depth knowledge, appreciation, and understanding of natural family planning.

...... NFP methods can be very effective in helping couples to both achieve and avoid pregnancy (Hilgers & Stanford, 1998 ; Howard & Stanford, 1999 ). However, very few studies on NFP effectiveness have been clinical trials with comparison groups (Lamprecht & Trussell, 1997 ). Adherence to NFP method instruction and spousal support are key factors in high effectiveness rates (Tommaselli, Guida, & Palomba, 2000 ). There is also the realization that the older calendar methods of NFP might be more effective than was previously thought (Kambic, 2000 ).

________________________________________________________________

The Allen Guttmacher Institute http://www.agi-usa.org/pubs/fb_contr_use.html , rates “periodic abstinence”—which lumps ALL sorts of Fertility Awareness methods together—with “perfect use” from 1.0-9.0 failure rate, and a “typical use” failure rate of 25.0. Of course—as noted in the above article—these methods require commitment and self control from the users.

So then it is good that I wasn't merely making assertion, but actually were dispensing actual facts. You should try it sometimes. Then you wouldn't have to be called on as the liar you are all the time.

Do you take it all back now, steen? I won’t hold my breath.........

Felicity · Oct 2, 2005

steen said:
I live in one where people make better decisions if they are educated.

I agree!!! THE WHOLE TRUTH!

They live in a world where, if they are educated about contraception and have easy access, they are more likely to use it and use it correctly, and thus avoid an unwanted pregnancy and abortions.

What about education on the truth of the abortifacient aspects of hormonal contraception? How about educating them on the failure rates of contraception—I mean the REAL facts...How about educating them on the objectification of women due to the contraceptive mentality? How about educating them on respect achieved with abstinence—both from potential mates and respect for themselves? Why NOT inform them about the bodies natural fertility signs? Why NOT emphasize self-control and abstinence. Why NOT emphasize the benefits of such a CHOICE for their fertility—it empowerment for women younger and older.....

....no....you’d probably rather have the cow juiced up on hormones givin’ her milk for free....

And, of course, they are, if they are "hot and sweaty," much LESS likely to use abstinence, showing how truly hypocritical your arguments against sex-ed and contraception is.

The point is to NOT GET IN that position in the first place.....It CAN be done...people aren’t animals and DO HAVE reasoning faculties—as I have pointed out in another discussion on this thread....

here is your example of teens that are not using their head, yet you claim that abstinence-only is a valid version of sex-ed. So either you are lying when you talk about abstinence-only, or you are lying when you imply that teens don't think if they are "hot and sweaty." Which is it? Which one is where you are dishonest, where you lie?
.....
<except, of course, when we are tyalking about "hot and sweaty" teens, right? After all, up above, you were trying to claim that they wouldn't remember "correct" use of contraception, and now you claim they will refrain from having sex when "hot and sweaty"?

As I said, at least one of these arguemtns of yours is flat-out dishonest. You talk out of both sides of your mouth, you are a habitual liar, who misrepresents and lie when it suits your argument.

You have a basic misunderstanding of abstinence education and it’s due to your bias that people are horny idiots that are slaves to their urges.... Obviously....if the adults teaching abstinence don’t have the self control due to poor character...the children being taught it see hypocrite written all over them. Teens DON’T think when they are hot and sweaty....but they CAN avoid getting into that situation—what do you think all the anti-smoking anti-drug campaigns rely on? ABSTINENCE!

Felicity · Oct 2, 2005

steen said:
But "person" IS defined in Roe vs Wade as not including the unborn. Yet, you clearly do hold such an inclusion.
So you are again lying.

Ooooh....big red letters...I'm so intimidated.....

The book's not closed and you DAMN WELL KNOW IT!

....and it defines the state as pretty much dependant upon future medical and philosophical determinations...

Felicity · Oct 2, 2005

FutureIncoming said:
Felicity wrote: "Give it up already, FI...."

Nope. I posted a valid question, basically about where the line can be drawn between "human life" and "human person". If you can find any flaws in the data or in the logic, feel free to point them out. If you cannot, then YOU will be the one having to give up.

See...I get tired of reading your stuff and kinda rush through since most is tangential and off topic...I have been BEGGING you to be succinct for this very purpose...I don't want to have to set up a major excavation site to find your point. Was the question "Is a human arm a "person"?"

Uh....no--it doesn't fit the criteria.

Was the question "If a new head could be grown on a human body--would that be a "person"?"

Uh...if it fit the criteria--yes...but I don't think that the "person" would be fully human anymore since his development was not of the nature of human reproduction--specifically egg/sperm. The new "person" would be more akin to a golem--of Jewish folklore... It certainly wouldn't be the same person as before the head regeneration....

The fundamental problem with the anti-abortion postion is that it is based on arbitrary claims made millenia ago. They are trying to prop up something that is inherently unsupportable. You say "abortion is wrong" for a list of reasons, and yet EVERY SINGLE ONE of those reasons is flawed in one way or another.

Waiting to have you give me one of those flaws...been waitin' a few days now...and several posts....

For example, the "it's immoral" reason doesn't work because morals are culturally arbitrary, not universal. For another example, the "God said so" reason not only cannot be proved, but quite simple logic, based on standard claims about the nature of God, indicates that God isn't the sort to make such a Rule.

YOU are the one bring God into this discussion....not me. Is it because you want to get it on that ground so you can dismiss it with your anti-religion bias? Stick with what I've SAID instead of generalizing it out. If you can't....then my argument IS successful against your challenge.

For another example, the "right to life" reason fails because there isn't any such right in Nature; it is purely an egotistical human invention for human political/arbitrary purposes.

Evidence? Yours is an arbitrary statement as well.

However, you did say there was a "right to try..." Fine...call it that if you want...The human species Right to Try" deserves protection from conception...SAME DIFFERENCE.

For another example, the "human life is valuable" reason is purely subjective (another creation of the human ego); not only isn't that reason objective, it isn't even fully supported by other actions of many of those who proclaim that reason (see the various minimum-wage messages).

Have you yet offered an argument against the position I stated concerning WHY human life is valuable? No. Then again...this is an arbitrary statement with no rational support.

For another example, the "all undeveloped humans are persons" reason, which is the focus of your Message #475 and my Message #511 (with more to come) leads to the absurdity of proclaiming a severed/regenerating toe to be a person. PERHAPS I could use your failure to poke at the data and logic in Message #511 as great evidence why your supposedly "universally accurate" definition of a Person (in Message #475) is flawed. We shall see.

Ok...I answered it....a limb cannot "reason" and has no self will...NOT A PERSON....A limb that regrows an entire body would be a "person"--but not in the "natural" sense.

Got any more reasons? Bring 'em on! In the end, I am confident you will have no VALID reason to claim that abortion is wrong. Abortion MIGHT be truly wrong for you and various others personally, for particularly personal (and even different) reasons, but it most certainly will be wrong for anyone to arbitrarily declare to all, that abortion is wrong for them as well.

I really don't know where your confidence derives from--well. I could guess...It derives from your desire for it to be so--unfortunately, you have yet to offer an example where the reasoning I presented fails when applied...

Make no mistake, I am in this Thread to utterly demolish all the anti-abortionist arguments. ALL of them.

So far....I'm not terribly impressed....

Felicity · Oct 2, 2005

Interesting info...

Here's the legend of the Golem...which suggest he wouldn't have
FREE WILL....Hmmmmmmm....maybe not a person after all.....????

http://www.pitt.edu/~dash/golem.html

But......since it doesn't exist...we can't know, so I'll assume a "new-headed" being fits the criteria...

FutureIncoming · Oct 3, 2005

Felicity wrote: "See...I get tired of reading your stuff and kinda rush through since most is tangential and off topic...I have been BEGGING you to be succinct for this very purpose...I don't want to have to set up a major excavation site to find your point. Was the question "Is a human arm a "person"?"
Uh....no--it doesn't fit the criteria.
Was the question "If a new head could be grown on a human body--would that be a "person"?"
Uh...if it fit the criteria--yes...but I don't think that the "person" would be fully human anymore since his development was not of the nature of human reproduction--specifically egg/sperm. The new "person" would be more akin to a golem--of Jewish folklore... It certainly wouldn't be the same person as before the head regeneration...."
{later on in Message #521}
"Ok...I answered it....a limb cannot "reason" and has no self will...NOT A PERSON....A limb that regrows an entire body would be a "person"--but not in the "natural" sense."

The problem with succinct is that it is just a bald statement, which you will probably disbelieve (and you did exactly that with respect to your breakdown of the "invalidated reasons" list that I posted in Message #517). So, usually I tend to present supporting evidence at the same time I'm making my point. The exception like #517 was done because the evidence was presented across a number of previous postings.

Now, about the arm and the criteria. Keep in mind that we are talking about an arm on life support being allowed to regenerate the rest of the body. There is no "golem" effect at all here; the process is actually equivalent to "twinning" (delayed, though

. In twinning a fertilized egg divides into multiple cells, and apparently there are several opportunities where the cluster of cells may split entirely into two clusters, which eventually develop into separate complete human bodies. Well, any entire human body is a "cluster of cells", and any multicellular severed piece is still a cluster. If that severed cluster happens to be an arm, so what? If it has the ability to regenerate the rest of the body (just like those few cells in ordinary twinning), then the new-body-with-old-arm is the equivalent of a twin of the original body that lost the arm. When the regeneration process is done, there will be a person who is distinct from the original person. The only question is, "When does the word "person" apply to the regenerating arm?"

See, the kicker is this. According to the descriptions of those regenerating mice, NO ADDITIONAL SPECIAL TREATMENT IS NEEDED. Once the mouse has the ability to regenerate, regeneration is automatic whenever some body part is damaged or lost. Those researchers may not have thought of the possibility that if the mouse lost a leg, and that leg was put on life-support, it should automatically start regenerating an attached body-of-mouse. SO, WHEN humans acquire this physical ability to regenerate, it means that any accidental loss of toe or finger or arm, or etc., is immediately associated with Consequences. The lost part could be re-attached, of course, and healing likely would be rather faster than normal. OR the injured human might simply decide that a lost toe is insignificant because a new one will grow to take its place, and only minor inconvenience will be involved, and who wants to pay that surgeon to reattach it, anyway?. BUT in this case, ACCORDING TO YOUR DEFINITION OF PERSON, the lost toe is being aborted! All it needs is life support, to grow into a complete body....

And that is why I now say your definition of "person" is absurdly inaccurate, even before I finish working on my reply to your Message #275. I quote again what you wrote: "Ok...I answered it....a limb cannot "reason" and has no self will...NOT A PERSON....A limb that regrows an entire body would be a "person"--but not in the "natural" sense." AHA! Regeneration has long been a Natural part of many lifeforms (I mentioned starfish in Message #511 as an example where the limb CAN regrow the body). You are not going to wiggle out of this dilemma; the severed toe of a regeneration-enabled human must be called a person according to your "totality of being" definition -- and just about everyone except other anti-abortionists will laugh at you over the absurdity of it. And therefore, because the young fetus cannot reason and has no self-will, in spite of "totality of being", it cannot be a person, either.

Felicity quoted: "For another example, the "right to life" reason fails because there isn't any such right in Nature; it is purely an egotistical human invention for human political/arbitrary purposes."

Felicity wrote: Evidence? Yours is an arbitrary statement as well.

NOT! Nature does not care one whit about Life or humans. Remember the giant meteor that wiped out the giant dinosaurs? If any of them ever claimed to have a right to life, they were badly mistaken! And what about all sorts of Natural "disasters" that kill humans in droves? There was an earthquake or two last century in China that killed 800,000. There was that tsunami in December 2004 that killed more than a quarter-million. There was a volcano in the Mediterranean (Santorini) that wiped out the entire Minoan civilization. There is physical evidence (a crater) and written evidence (epic of Gilgamesh) for a impact event that nearly destroyed early human civilization all across the globe (traditional view of comets as harbingers of disaster may stem from that event). There is LOTS of evidence that there is NO "right to life" in Nature!!! (Let's see, there are psychic predictions that when California experiences the Incoming Future Big Earthquake, there will be ten million deaths right there. The predictions will fail if lots of people move out, of course. And, equally of course, the predictions might simply be wrong. We shall see.)

Next, don't even try to confuse "right to try" with "right to succeed". The process of living IS at least in part the process of trying to stay alive. THAT is why there is a "right to try". But Nature might terminate degree-of-success at any moment, and you had better remember that!

Felicity quoted: "For another example, the "human life is valuable" reason is purely subjective (another creation of the human ego); not only isn't that reason objective, it isn't even fully supported by other actions of many of those who proclaim that reason (see the various minimum-wage messages)."

Felicity wrote: "Have you yet offered an argument against the position I stated concerning WHY human life is valuable? No. Then again...this is an arbitrary statement with no rational support."

Go back and reread the first two parts of Message #457. I note that you chose to reply to the third part only; you never replied to either of the first two parts. Yes, I know you have stated that certain traits are valuable, and therefore since humans have those traits, humans must be valuable, but you never offered any objective evidence that those traits were actually valuable! The EVIDENCE is that ALL VALUES ARE SUBJECTIVE. If you can point out one single thing that is truly Objectively Valuable, such that even Nature recognizes it and doesn't blindly destroy it, it will be the first.

Felicity wrote: "So far....I'm not terribly impressed...."

That will change.

Felicity · Oct 3, 2005

FutureIncoming said:
BUT in this case, ACCORDING TO YOUR DEFINITION OF PERSON, the lost toe is being aborted! All it needs is life support, to grow into a complete body....

Absolutely not so.....

How many times do I have to insist that POTENTIALITY has NOTHING to do with the definition I put forth?????

The “nature” of the toe has no reason or self will—neither does the body that regrows a head—until (maybe) it’s a whole human again.

There is no "golem" effect at all here; the process is actually equivalent to "twinning" (delayed, though . In twinning a fertilized egg divides into multiple cells,

No golem effect??? Because why...you say so? This is ALLLLLLL theoretical, remember? And I don’t agree it’s like twinning because it is the WHOLE being that divides for twinning—not a cell at a time...the whole being is a single cell at the time of division—that is the difference. Twinning can’t happen anywhere but at that stage of development....what you suggest is something totally different.

Next, don't even try to confuse "right to try" with "right to succeed". The process of living IS at least in part the process of trying to stay alive. THAT is why there is a "right to try". But Nature might terminate degree-of-success at any moment, and you had better remember that!

I didn’t argue with this...all I said was that human life deserves to have it’s “right to try” protected for the reasons I have given. No other “person” should interfere with the “right to try” for humans. Illness or calamity is out of human control, but conscious, rational, actions taken according to will—are controllable and people should respect the right to try of other people.

Go back and reread the first two parts of Message #457.

This is really a pain in the butt....you've successfully minimally DOUBLED the sized of your post with a single sentence...talk about "twinning":roll:

#457: One of the foundations upon which opponents of abortion build their argument is the claim that human life has inherent value that should be respected. But is that a true statement? How is "value" determined, anyway? Answer: Value is actually never an inherent quality of anything; the value of something is always defined in terms of associations with other things. Here are some items of supporting evidence:

The question you asked—asked for a reason to value human life at the embryonic stage as well as throughout human development...I gave it. The definition I presented did not rely on an external assessment of value—it did not rely on potentiality—it did not rely on religious tenets. To suggest NOTHING has value as evidenced by the “law” of supply and demand, the minimum wage, the cost of gold, the call for “women and children first"....is COMPLETELY placing arbitrary value on society’s principles rather than strictly looking at the human person OBJECTIVELY—Not as an OBJECT. The whole thing is IRRELEVANT and that is why I ignored it. I contend the inherent value is evidenced by the unique NATURE of the human creature. You CAN’T give me any REAL example of a creature that has those capabilities to dispute the definition I put forth....you are creating elaborate “possibilities” to try to negate a very SIMPLE perspective—and you consistently miss the mark by introducing things into the definition—like God, Society, Potentiality, Functionality.....Deal with the definition and demonstrate the error of the logic.

The definition deals with the NATURE of the creature man.

If you can point out one single thing that is truly Objectively Valuable, such that even Nature recognizes it and doesn't blindly destroy it, it will be the first.

If the thing in nature hasn’t the capacity for reason...it cannot make that assessment. Only man has that capacity....that is further evidence of the uniqueness of man and reason for preserving his “right to try.”

In addition—whether something has value or not has no bearing on its calamitous destruction.

Felicity wrote: "So far....I'm not terribly impressed...."

That will change.

6 days...:shock: ...and waiting to be dazzled.....:unsure13:

FutureIncoming · Oct 3, 2005

Felicity quoted: "BUT in this case, ACCORDING TO YOUR DEFINITION OF PERSON, the lost toe is being aborted! All it needs is life support, to grow into a complete body...."

Felicity wrote: "Absolutely not so.....
How many times do I have to insist that POTENTIALITY has NOTHING to do with the definition I put forth?????
The “nature” of the toe has no reason or self will—neither does the body that regrows a head—until (maybe) it’s a whole human again.

Regarding twinning (per unquoted comment), I also thought at one time that it was a result of a single-cell division that went too far. But see this:
http://www.wonderquest.com/TwinsTrigger.htm

Next, I wasn't talking about potential. Ignoring souls, the nature of a human is defined by the DNA and environment. Both young fetus and regenerating toe have all the DNA needed to grow into a complete human. Both require life-support. NEITHER has reason nor self-will. And neither has any more right to succeed than the other.

Felicity wrote: "...all I said was that human life deserves to have it’s “right to try” protected for the reasons I have given. No other “person” should interfere with the “right to try” for humans. Illness or calamity is out of human control, but conscious, rational, actions taken according to will—are controllable and people should respect the right to try of other people."

That presupposes that all unborn humans qualify as people. Simple Golden Rule stuff, as mentioned in previous messages, is good enough reason for People to be nice to each other, if only because People can UNDERSTAND the Golden Rule. But no animal can understand it, and neither can any unborn human (takes months after birth before humans even learn how to share!). The utterly selfish take-take-taking unborn deserve nothing except what people choose to give them (and most pro-choice people DO choose to occasionally allow taking to continue to term).

Felicity wrote: "To suggest NOTHING has value as evidenced by the “law” of supply and demand, the minimum wage, the cost of gold, the call for “women and children first"....is COMPLETELY placing arbitrary value on society’s principles rather than strictly looking at the human person OBJECTIVELY—Not as an OBJECT. The whole thing is IRRELEVANT and that is why I ignored it. I contend the inherent value is evidenced by the unique NATURE of the human creature."

NOPE. You are simply announcing, "I am valuable because I say these traits are valuable, and I have those traits." Period. Pure subjective egotism, and not objective at all. WORTHLESS as evidence of objective value! Next, Societies' principles exist ONLY to allow the perpetuation of societies. They are therefore mostly SUBJECTIVE to each society, just like morals. Again, little or no objectivity! (It depends on how "principles" are defined. Even the Golden Rule has trouble being a truly objective principle, that can apply to any persons of any sort any where. Just consider a masochist who decides to practice the Golden Rule on you...)

Felicity wrote: "If the thing in nature hasn’t the capacity for reason...it cannot make that assessment. Only man has that capacity....that is further evidence of the uniqueness of man and reason for preserving his “right to try.”
In addition—whether something has value or not has no bearing on its calamitous destruction."

NOPE. Uniqueness is a standard SUBJECTIVE reason to declare something has value, per the Law of Supply and Demand. Heh, there is a famous short story, "To Serve Man" (by Damon Knight) in which aliens arrive at Earth claiming they are there To Serve Man, and they all are carrying around special books to help, since Man is unique. Well, finally some guy gets hold of one of those books and translates it. It's a cookbook.

Felicity · Oct 3, 2005

FutureIncoming said:
Regarding twinning (per unquoted comment), I also thought at one time that it was a result of a single-cell division that went too far. But see this:
http://www.wonderquest.com/TwinsTrigger.htm

From your link (my emphasis)..."When the whole blastocyst passes through its shell, the inner cell mass can fragment into two (or very rarely three) clumps of cells. The two cell clumps form into complete embryos, which become identical fetuses,"

That is nothing like the budding and growing you explained--it is a single event producing multiple embryo.

Next, I wasn't talking about potential. Ignoring souls, the nature of a human is defined by the DNA and environment. Both young fetus and regenerating toe have all the DNA needed to grow into a complete human. Both require life-support. NEITHER has reason nor self-will. And neither has any more right to succeed than the other.

One is COMPLETE in its form. An embryo has all that it will become from the moment the sperm penetrates the egg. The toe is missing part of its being and has to regenerate it. This is why I say the "person" regenerated reminds me of the golem folkstory. Perhaps you are right that the toe has the DNA information that would be required--but it's generation is "unnatural" and not part of the nature of the being man.

Felicity wrote: "...all I said was that human life deserves to have it’s “right to try” protected for the reasons I have given. No other “person” should interfere with the “right to try” for humans. Illness or calamity is out of human control, but conscious, rational, actions taken according to will—are controllable and people should respect the right to try of other people."

That presupposes that all unborn humans qualify as people.

Of course it does...because embryo's are biologically of the human species--therefore they have human nature therefore they are persons....

Simple Golden Rule stuff, as mentioned in previous messages, is good enough reason for People to be nice to each other, if only because People can UNDERSTAND the Golden Rule. But no animal can understand it, and neither can any unborn human (takes months after birth before humans even learn how to share!). The utterly selfish take-take-taking unborn deserve nothing except what people choose to give them

But that presupposes that mental accuity has anything at all to do with being a person

NOPE. You are simply announcing, "I am valuable because I say these traits are valuable, and I have those traits." Period. Pure subjective egotism, and not objective at all. WORTHLESS as evidence of objective value!

Well...can a toad tell me why he should be considered objectively valuable? Hey--how about Coco the gorilla? Hmmm? Nope.

Felicity wrote: "If the thing in nature hasn’t the capacity for reason...it cannot make that assessment. Only man has that capacity....that is further evidence of the uniqueness of man and reason for preserving his “right to try.”
In addition—whether something has value or not has no bearing on its calamitous destruction."

NOPE. Uniqueness is a standard SUBJECTIVE reason to declare something has value, per the Law of Supply and Demand.

Supply and demand is an economic theory--no OBJECTIVE "law" about it....

For the bah-jillionth time...you asked for a DEFINITION. a definition has to define based on criteria...all you will accept is that it can't be done...fine. I believe I did it...you have offered nothing that convinces me to think otherwise--or even QUESTION the definition I provided...

So be it--you are entitled to think I'm full o' nonsence...and I am entitled to think likewise of you.

FutureIncoming · Oct 3, 2005

Finally, an extended period with no interruptions.
Text including quotes from Message #475, by Felicity
***
YOUR CHALLENGE:
Quote:
"Define "person" to be Universally applicable and , to distinguish people from mere animals.
For example, if God exists, is non-biological, and is a person, then God is a person because {--put definitive criteria here--}.
After that, please explain how unborn humans are so different from mere animals that they should be classed as persons, too.

#1 Did I define "person?"
#2 Was it Universally applicable and accurate?
#3 Was it accurate and applicable, regardless of physical nature?
#4 Did I explain how unborn humans are so different from mere animals that they should be classed as persons, too.

Yeah...I did...all of the above. In my very first post on this thread...
***

Text by FutureIncoming
+++
Certainly you THINK you did. We shall see.
+++

***
Post #398:
Quote:
"if God exists, is non-biological, and is a person, then God is a person because...." {He is in the totality of His being (his nature) intelligence that can comprehend the abstract and extrapolate from there based on self-will}

It is true that many humans are incapable of that type of conceptualization--such as the unborn and severely retarded or physically traumatized--but as a species--it is how man is made--it is mankind's "nature"--in the totality of his being. Sans illness or trauma, the nature of the human person is able to comprehend the abstract and extrapolate meaning from it as well as determine his course via self-will as demonstrated in individual's lifespan.

Animals can't do that.
later I clarified it in the "list."
The nature of the species must have the capacity for.....
Self-will......reasoning....comprehension of the abstract...extrapolation of information....ability to act or not act based upon self-determined reasoning.
***

+++
I note that all those items are associated with advanced brain-power. Also, "reasoning" is something that some animals CAN do, at least a little. A chimpanzee is able to figure out that connecting two sticks together to make a longer stick makes a bananna, otherwise out of reach, accessible. A soaring/circling crow that watches a farmer enter a shack in the cornfield is aware that the farmer can emerge at any time and chase the crow, so the crow does not land to peck at the corn in the first place. Getting back off the ground takes a lot of work, and birds have a fine sense of "payoff" (they have to perceive thing on the ground as being worth the effort -- and interrupted corn-gathering isn't). Heh, I've read about experiments that indicate crows can count to four. If five people enter the shack and four leave, the crow will then land...

Then there is abstraction-comprehension. We know of cases where gorillas and chimpanzees have successfully learned basic sign language or specially-devised ideograms -- and then used them in meaningful combinations outside of what they had been taught. So again what humans have is not unique, but merely a "more of the same", a greater degree of ability than that of the animal. (Hmmm...that could be a touchy issue, because those "animals" are displaying greater communication skills that some severely handicapped humans, so could gorillas and chimps be persons, too?)

So far as I am aware, only one human mental ability is not shared at least slightly by some animal or other, and this is the ability to imagine self in the situation of another. While Free Will may be a second unique trait, this is difficult to prove. If an ordinary mammal is ONLY a stimulus/response bio-machine (as is quite certain for insects --and if you think about it, this is a reason why robots might be called life-forms), then the fact that mammals have complex brains makes it difficult to determine which stimulus prompted which random-seeming behavior (see young mammals at play). There MIGHT be a trace of free will in there somewhere. Not as much as humans have, but then we already know humans have more of all sorts of mental skills than ordinary animals. And for at least some of those traits, we can identify places within a developing human life when more-than-animal-degree of each skill begins to manifest.

While writing the preceding paragraphs an old memory surfaced, which I needed to research a bit. "Time binding" it was called. My memory does not agree with what I found in a Google search, something Alfred Korzybski thought up as a way to distinguish humans from beasts (the ability to accumulate and use a multigenerational store of knowledge). I see Korzybski's time-binding as a natural consequence of the advanced abstraction-comprehension ability (e.g., "writing") that Felicity already mentioned. My old memory related time-binding to something else (perhaps erroneously). I'm thinking it had something to do with the phrase "living in the present". So far as we know, animals do not mentally dwell upon the past or daydream about the future, not even those communicative chimps and gorillas. On the other hand, is this not simply a variant of what I previously mentioned, "the ability to imagine self in the situation of another"? Imagining self in past or future situations is perhaps not signficantly different from imagining self in alternate present situations.

Regarding Individuals and species:
The word "organism" is beautiful. It is an already-existing word that specifies organization and usually implies Life, and so it can be applied to any individual life-form, regardless of physical nature. Even if the "individual organism" is a multi-bodied thing like an ant colony, the word still works.

As you know, an individual is generally not a species, but merely representative of a species. And you probably also know that the common biological distinction of a species is that its individual members can only produce fertile offspring by breeding with other members of the species. But that definition also assumes sexual reproduction, and for any organisms that reproduce by fission or budding or other asexual method, the word "species" has to have another definition. There is one (this phrasing is taken from www.thefreedictionary.com): "A class of individuals or objects grouped by virtue of their common attributes and assigned a common name." This definition is so generic it allows the word to be used in such sentences as this quote:
"No species of performing artist is as self-critical as a dancer" --Susan Sontag.
(She should try exhibition diving off a high board some time; when a dive goes wrong, self-criticism is proportional to the pain.

Why, with a definition like that, we could even talk about the "species of Persons"! --And, perhaps, I may....

Anyway, the concept of species in biology is certainly broad enough that in addition to all the individuals whose traits are used to define a species, the species also includes similar-enough individuals that differ slightly (or even, sometimes, differ quite a bit) -- ALL dogs are of the same species; a turtle hatched with two heads is still the same species of turtle, a human born with no brain is still homo sapiens, and so on.

Well, you wrote, regarding humans, "but as a species--it is how man is made--it is mankind's "nature"--in the totality of his being", that certain characteristics are associated with the species. I will focus on two issues here (a third is already being discussed between us, regarding the consequences of regeneration technology).
(1) The "totality of being" of humans includes far more traits than just the ones needed to indicate Personhood. There are all the physical traits of a mere animal, for starters. There is selfishness, which humans have to be trained to control (with varying degrees of success). There is bigotry and parochialism and shortsightedness, to name some other (perhaps subtly related) traits that generally also require training to overcome. And yet the opposites of those traits exist also (especially after training), just as cowardice and bravery and stupidity and genius are all well-known traits of the human species. SO: to use "totality of being" in the way that you have, to apply species traits to every individual, is to say, for example, "This adult human is a person AND an animal AND an idiot AND a genius AND ..." Heh, it may even be a completely true statement, but it includes so many contradictions that semantically, it cancels itself out, leaving any outsider to wonder why ANY human could be considered a person, after all. The point is, A SPECIES IS NOT A PERSON. Only individuals can be persons --even if a particular individual happens to be the only representative of a species -- or merely a very poor representative, as discussed next.
(2) You certainly recall earlier Messages about a "right to try". It is well-known that due to genetic variation and occasional errors in expression of DNA, not every individual human succeeds in its "try" to achieve all the traits generally associated with humans. If one happens to be born without a brain, as does occasionally occur, that newborn human will die quickly. Well, before death takes place, on what basis should that particular human be called a person, especially if the defining traits of personhood are all tied to brainpower? It most certainly isn't exhibiting much of the ordinary human's "totality of being"!
+++

(have to cut Message here; have error indicating exceeded 10,000 character limit)

FutureIncoming · Oct 3, 2005

(prior Message continues)

***
Q: Do you know what I mean when I say "NATURE of the species?"
A: The essential characteristics and qualities....The fundamental character....the real aspect...the essence of the species-what it is-all of it's attributes physical, mental, and metaphysical (however-for the sake of unbelievers-I ignored the "religious" side of the metaphysical arguments).
***

+++
Yes, as I mentioned above, it includes all the "bad" things as well as all the "good" things (the definitions of "bad" and "good" being subjective and not objective, of course). Objectively, all or nearly all of those attributes include opposites, like the brainy and the brainless, so they cancel each other out.
+++

***
Q: Do you know what capacity means?
A: There was some debate concerning that and the difference between "capacity" and "potential." To clarify-"capacity" represents the being as a whole whereas "potential" infers stages of development. "Capacity" refers to an innate or inherent quality whereas "potential" refers to possible quality. Innate and inherent mean that it is part of the NATURE of the species-the fundamental character of the species-the reality of what the species is-objectively.
***

+++
Here I see you are trying and failing to be clever with words. "Inherent capacity" means "actually-existing capacity" (at www.dictionary.com, the first word of the definition of "inherent" is "existing"). The existing capacity of a young fetus is far far less than the existing capacity of an adult. There are NO words that can assign adult capacity to a fetus, without referencing "potential". And referencing "species" is just a red herring. The species, after all, includes brainless humans of zero capacity (and who die shortly after birth, because of that).
+++

***
Q: Do you understand self will?
A: The power of making free choices that are unconstrained by external circumstances or by an agency such as fate or divine will. (dictionary.com)
***

+++
We have no quarrel over the definition of free will. In reference to the Law of Cause and Effect (the cornerstone of "determinist" philosophy, which is the enemy of free will), a Free Will is a Cause that is not itself an Effect of a prior Cause. We might experience some quarrel from Physicists, who can pretty solidly link the Law of Cause and Effect to the Law of Conservation of Mass/Energy. THEY are likely to say, "We will not believe in Free Will until you build a perpetual motion machine." 'Tis a tricky issue there (I recall posting a Message about random quantum events being tied to Free Will), but, just between us, you and I have no quarrel here. Certainly if any mere animal exhibits free will, it does not do so to the magnitude exhibited by humans, just like various other mental abilities.
+++

***
Q: reasoning?
A: The capacity for logical, rational, and analytic thought; intelligence (dictionary.com) NOTE the word "capacity"-it is an innate ability-part of the NATURE of the species.
I think from there, the rest is pretty easy...
***

+++
And, as before, "capacity" refers to THAT WHICH ACTUALLY EXISTS. The capacity of the species is not the capacity of the individual, and the Nature of the species includes all sorts of failed attempts to achieve the norm. A young fetus has zero capacity for reasoning.
+++

***
That is the criteria for PERSONHOOD.
***

+++
And the young fetus most certainly does not qualify. An older fetus might not, either.
I repeat: The "nature of a species" is again not relevant to a developing individual, mostly because it is associated with that disallowed word "potential"; only HOW THAT NATURE IS EXPRESSED RIGHT NOW in an individual is relevant to deciding if the individual is a person.
+++

***
It is universal-if you apply those criteria to any species you can determine its personhood. You gave the example of using God as the litmus test of universality-and by this test God would be a person-and human beings would be persons. If somewhere out there in the wide world or the universe a being exists that fits those criteria-they would be persons.

SO.......
Q: ARE THERE ANY KNOWN ANIMALS THAT FIT THE CRITERIA?
A: No.
***

+++
Not completely, agreed. Some get close enough, like those chimps and gorillas that can handle some abstract symbols and do some reasoning, to make one wonder.
+++

***
Q: DOES AN EMBRYO FIT THE CRITERIA?
A: Yes!

Q: HOW DOES AN EMBRYO FIT THE CRITERIA?
A:
1. Is it biologically an identifiable species? yes-the human species. Therefore, the nature of the represented species applies to the embryo-it is identifiably of the human species and therefore what the human species is-the embryo also is.
***

+++
NOT! You have just specified an "equality", and for an equality to be true, it must work both ways. Specifically, "what the human species is-the embryo also is" does NOT correctly turn around into "what the embryo is-the human species also is". Therefore that is an INVALID equality statement. And any logic that depends on this statement will also automatically be invalid.
+++

***
2. Since the nature of the species encompasses the "capacity" of the species-the embryo INNATELY and INHERENTLY posses those characteristics of the species. The nature of the human species has free will and the capacity for reasoning etc...Therefore the embryo innately has the same qualities whether or not it can effect its innate capacity. It possesses the characteristics simply by virtue of it being of the human species with a human nature.
***

+++
FALSE, AGAIN. Because "inherent" means "existing". The inherent mental capacities of an embryo most definitely are NOT even remotely of the same magnitude as the mental capacities as an adult. Especially does any correlation break down because the logic of statement 1 is faulty.
+++

***
The human species fits the criteria for personhood--therefore every human--from conception on--is a PERSON.
***

+++
NOPE. Since there no equality between species and the developmental stages of an individual, there can be no generic/blanket claim here. Only individuals can be persons. and only if they meet the criteria.
+++

***
The only conclusion is that animals are not persons-and embryos ARE persons. Therefore, embryos deserve the protection due all persons-If it is wrong for another to deprive me of my life as a mature individual person-it is wrong for another to deprive an embryo of life as an immature individual person. Abortion is WRONG.

+++
This paragraph is obviously faulty, since it depends on prior statements shown to be faulty. Your criteria for personhood does NOT indicate that abortion is wrong.
+++

FutureIncoming · Oct 3, 2005

Felicity quoted: "But see this:
http://www.wonderquest.com/TwinsTrigger.htm"

Felicity wrote: "From your link (my emphasis)..."When the whole blastocyst passes through its shell, the inner cell mass can fragment into two (or very rarely three) clumps of cells. The two cell clumps form into complete embryos, which become identical fetuses,"

That is nothing like the budding and growing you explained--it is a single event producing multiple embryo.

I did not "explain budding and growing". Here is the original text from Message #523: "In twinning a fertilized egg divides into multiple cells, and apparently there are several opportunities where the cluster of cells may split entirely into two clusters, which eventually develop into separate complete human bodies. Well, any entire human body is a "cluster of cells", and any multicellular severed piece is still a cluster."

Looks to me that the only incorrect thing there is "several opportunities". The notion that we have a cluster of cells that can grow into a whole body -- that notion is entirely unaffected. And the consequential dilemma for you remains unaffected, too.

FutureIncoming · Oct 3, 2005

Felicity quoted: "Next, I wasn't talking about potential. Ignoring souls, the nature of a human is defined by the DNA and environment. Both young fetus and regenerating toe have all the DNA needed to grow into a complete human. Both require life-support. NEITHER has reason nor self-will. And neither has any more right to succeed than the other."

Felicity wrote: "One is COMPLETE in its form. An embryo has all that it will become from the moment the sperm penetrates the egg. The toe is missing part of its being and has to regenerate it. This is why I say the "person" regenerated reminds me of the golem folkstory. Perhaps you are right that the toe has the DNA information that would be required--but it's generation is "unnatural" and not part of the nature of the being man."

Believe it or not, the preceding is a quibble. Because all I have to do is point out the original zygote that resulted from fertilization, and a single "severed" regeneration-enabled cell. The ONLY difference now is that the zygote has a lot of food to support its initial dividing, while the severed cell will need an external supply immediately. What you are quibbling about above is nothing more than the overall shape of a bunch of cells. Totally unimportant.

FutureIncoming · Oct 3, 2005

Felicity quoted: "That presupposes that all unborn humans qualify as people."

Felicity wrote: "Of course it does...because embryo's are biologically of the human species--therefore they have human nature therefore they are persons...."

But that is what Messages #527 and #528 now address. You are mistaken.

FutureIncoming · Oct 3, 2005

Felicity quoted: "Simple Golden Rule stuff, as mentioned in previous messages, is good enough reason for People to be nice to each other, if only because People can UNDERSTAND the Golden Rule. But no animal can understand it, and neither can any unborn human (takes months after birth before humans even learn how to share!). The utterly selfish take-take-taking unborn deserve nothing except what people choose to give them"

Felicity wrote: "But that presupposes that mental accuity has anything at all to do with being a person"

Yes, it does, but, DUH, YOU were the one that specified "abstract reasoning ability" (required for understanding the Golden Rule) as part of the criteria for personhood. You cannot go against your own definition now.

FutureIncoming · Oct 3, 2005

Felicity quoted: "NOPE. You are simply announcing, "I am valuable because I say these traits are valuable, and I have those traits." Period. Pure subjective egotism, and not objective at all. WORTHLESS as evidence of objective value!"

Felicity wrote: "Well...can a toad tell me why he should be considered objectively valuable? Hey--how about Coco the gorilla? Hmmm? Nope"

Mere claims do NOT a fact make. Never have, never will. Also, remember that claims of value are often contradicted. Consider the art of haggling, eh? To say nothing of Nazi claims (in essence) that the Jews were worthless.

In fact, (and I sure hope readers read the following sentence before jumping on me about the end of this one

, Nazis and Jews have equal ZERO objective value. SUBJECTIVELY, however, as humans and ignoring politics/religion, human persons have nonzero value, and it is equal for all human persons. Person A says, "I claim a right to life because of my self-perceived value." Person B says, "I claim a right to life because of my self-perceived value." There is NO objective criteria that places one claim as more important than the other. (And a fetus, of course, is unable to make any such claim, which is evidence that it is not a person -- just like the gorilla.)

FutureIncoming · Oct 3, 2005

Felicity wrote: "If the thing in nature hasn’t the capacity for reason...it cannot make that assessment. Only man has that capacity....that is further evidence of the uniqueness of man and reason for preserving his “right to try. In addition—whether something has value or not has no bearing on its calamitous destruction."

Felicity quoted FutureIncoming's reply: "NOPE. Uniqueness is a standard SUBJECTIVE reason to declare something has value, per the Law of Supply and Demand.

Felicity wrote: "Supply and demand is an economic theory--no OBJECTIVE "law" about it...."

Beware of how you use that word "theory". An hypothesis is just a guess, but a Theory usually has LOTS and LOTS of supporting evidence. That's why Evolution, Theory that it is, still totally trumps Creationism (which has approximately zilch evidence, and so is actually merely an hypothesis). The "Law" of Supply and Demand is, per documented economic human interactions, about as solid as the "Law" of Gravitation. Sure, we can quibble about calling them both Theories instead of Laws -- but their validity doesn't change by an iota.

SO: The widespread applicability of "Supply and Demand", across ALL cultures (Google for the quoted phrases "black market" and "controlled economy" in the same search field some time), is a strong indicator that that "Law" is more Objective than Subjective. AND THEREFORE what you quoted above remains true. Uniqueness is only SUBJECTIVELY valuable.

FutureIncoming · Oct 3, 2005

Felicity wrote: "you are entitled to think I'm full o' nonsence...and I am entitled to think likewise of you."

I merely think you spout nonsense only because you hold certain basic notions that are just plain mistaken -- and that mistakes are correctable when enough evidence is presented that cannot be dismissed.

For example, do you remember this from Message #434?
"Next, while I'm on the topic of Artificial Intelligences, here is a nice little conundrum for you:
If the research being devoted to Artificial Intelligence (or "AI") succeeds, then a human-level mind will come into existence as a result of technological hardware/software progress. Note that there is a distinct equivalence between pieces of such a technology, compared to the whole AI, and the body of a fetus, compared to an independent human being. That is, the manufacturing of pieces of an AI is essential for the AI to exist, just as the reproduction of cells in a fetus is essential for an independent human being to exist. Now remember that future manufacturing will be more and more automated. This leads us to an interesting absurdity, in that if opponents of abortion require every fetus to be allowed to automatically grow a mind, then logically they should also require Artifical Intelligences to be automatically manufactured just as soon as technically possible! The two notions really are that equivalent, and so to declare the mandatory production of AIs to be absurd is also to declare the anti-abortion stand to likewise be absurd. More specifically: Minds cannot be required to come into existence just because some of their fundamental hardware happens to exist."

You replied in Message #437: "The two notions are NOT equivalent. One is hardware--one is a being--with "rights." One is an object--the other a "person."

SORRY, YOU ARE TRYING AND FAILING TO DISMISS THE ISSUE. BIOLOGY ***IS*** HARDWARE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! A lot of Biochemisty is Molecules Physically Interacting by Mechanical Shape -- which is EXACTLY what the Incoming Future "nanotechnology" is going to be. Yes, Biology also includes chemical reactions -- but then nanotechnology needs a power source, too. Yes, Biology involves assembling molecules and connecting them -- and nanotechnology is going to do exactly the same thing. The ONLY "technical" difference is that Biology "just happened", while nanotechnology is being Designed -- and you know full well that there are a lot of folks out there who dispute the "just happened" thing!

Which means that the Equivalence specified above remains completely valid, and so TRY AGAIN, to respond to the point that was made. If you can!

Explain Your Reasoning.

FutureIncoming

Felicity

Fantasea

steen

Lie Detector

steen

Lie Detector

steen

Lie Detector

FutureIncoming

Felicity

Felicity

Felicity

Felicity

Felicity

FutureIncoming

Felicity

FutureIncoming

Felicity

FutureIncoming

FutureIncoming

FutureIncoming

FutureIncoming

FutureIncoming

FutureIncoming

FutureIncoming

FutureIncoming

FutureIncoming