Gyroscopic Investing

I think birth -- whether natural or artificially-induced -- is pretty much the defining event.  It is at that moment that sentience, consciousness and volition all become manifest as a human entity.  It seems to me this is a much more objective standard than some hazy faith-based determination that a human being begins at fertilization all while hypocritically eating veal or enganging in other unethical practices that cause greater suffering.

Now personally and despite my "spiritual beliefs" for lack of a better term, I do find that abortion past the first trimester is exponentially a horrible freak show, but I am not so full of hubris that I want to impose my personal views and violate a woman's private property (mind+womb+fetus) through institutional coercion (just look at China, for an example).  There are certain things we will always have to grudgingly tolerate as long as private property is to foremost be respected and abortion is one of them unless the voluntary court of public opinion convinces us otherwise.

But WHY? Your position on birth being the defining event that turns us from a lump of cells into a human being is essentially "it's magic!" What is it that deferentiates a full term fetus in the womb from the human baby in the arms of the doctor. What you're proposing is the definition of hazy and faith based.

You'll need to clarify how be against the murder of the unborn would prevent someone from eating veal. That's just nonsensical.

RuralEngineer wrote: You'll need to clarify how be against the murder of the unborn would prevent someone from eating veal. That's just nonsensical.

It's not hazy and faith based because it is objective and scientifically measurable by a physical event.  If you don't like that, then make it 9 weeks.

MachineGhost wrote: I think birth -- whether natural or artificially-induced -- is pretty much the defining event.  It is at that moment that sentience, consciousness and volition all become manifest as a human entity. 

have you seen this video?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VfVOzKg9AJ4

(25 seconds)

MachineGhost wrote: If I go down that road it would make abortion absolute in all cases, because under no circumstance is a zygote, embryo or fetus a human being distinct from all the other mammals and animals.  What makes us human is only evident post-birth and in some cases not at all,

When you say "in some cases not at all"...what are you referring to here? Are you saying disabled children are not human? Not trying to put words in your mouth, just trying to understand your view.

but we don't terminate those lives because they're independent, volitional entities unlike the pre-born.

Unfortunately, this is not accurate. Please watch the first 1:30 of this video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDX52pEC7_w

MachineGhost wrote:
It's not hazy and faith based because it is objective and scientifically measurable by a physical event.  If you don't like that, then make it 9 weeks.

I'm not arguing that birth isn't a measurable event. I'm stating that you appear incapable of providing a single characteristic that distinguishes a fetus minutes from birth and a baby immediately after.

It's not a matter of what I do or do not like. I'm trying to understand why you personally feel birth is what defines a human being. You could just as easily claim it's puberty that makes us human and without a reason it's still an arbitrary distinction despite being an "objective and scientifically measurable" event, same as birth.

RuralEngineer wrote:

MachineGhost wrote:
It's not hazy and faith based because it is objective and scientifically measurable by a physical event.  If you don't like that, then make it 9 weeks.

I'm not arguing that birth isn't a measurable event. I'm stating that you appear incapable of providing a single characteristic that distinguishes a fetus minutes from birth and a baby immediately after.

It's not a matter of what I do or do not like. I'm trying to understand why you personally feel birth is what defines a human being. You could just as easily claim it's puberty that makes us human and without a reason it's still an arbitrary distinction despite being an "objective and scientifically measurable" event, same as birth.

You could make an argument that a woman should be able to have control over what happens in her body. Her body is sovereign. When the baby is inside her, she can take the baby's life. When the baby leaves her body, it is subject to the protections of the state.

The debate doesn't have to be about what defines life. It can be about where jurisdictions lie.

MachineGhost...formerly, even Planned Parenthood *openly* disagreed with you. This link provide original documentation.

please see http://liveaction.org/blog/planned-pare ... ills-baby/

melveyr wrote: The debate doesn't have to be about what defines life. It can be about where jurisdictions lie.

There really is no debate about where life begins...it has been settled scientific fact for decades. I agree with you that those who support abortion on demand need to try to formulate another argument.

murphy_p_t wrote:

melveyr wrote: The debate doesn't have to be about what defines life. It can be about where jurisdictions lie.

There really is no debate about where life begins...it has been settled scientific fact for decades. I agree with you that those who support abortion on demand need to try to formulate another argument.

If people are disagreeing about it, I would say that there is a debate.

The thing I have never understood is why the most intense pro-life/anti-choice advocates rarely want to punish women who get abortions in the same way that society punishes premeditated murder.  That tells me that even in their minds there is some difference between having an abortion and killing another person.

If you believe that having an abortion is exactly the same thing as killing another person, why would the punishment be any different?

I really don't like talking about abortion because in my mind there really isn't any position I am entirely comfortable with, short of living in a more enlightened world where all pregnancies are intended.  Every time I hear about someone getting an abortion I have the same emotion that I have when I hear someone was involved in a car wreck where there was a fatality.  Wherever fault or responsibility lies, it's just very sad.

MediumTex wrote: I really don't like talking about abortion because in my mind there really isn't any position I am entirely comfortable with, short of living in a more enlightened world where all pregnancies are intended.  Every time I hear about someone getting an abortion I have the same emotion that I have when I hear someone was involved in a car wreck where there was a fatality.  Wherever fault or responsibility lies, it's just very sad.

I feel exactly the same way.

melveyr wrote:
You could make an argument that a woman should be able to have control over what happens in her body. Her body is sovereign. When the baby is inside her, she can take the baby's life. When the baby leaves her body, it is subject to the protections of the state.

The debate doesn't have to be about what defines life. It can be about where jurisdictions lie.

You could make that argument. That's not what MG said though. He said birth is what differentiates humans from cell bundles (or veal apparently). If the argument were made though, I'd still want to know if the fetus were considered a person. Arguing that personal sovereignty allows for the termination of a cell bundle is much different than killing a human baby.

I'd be very interested if anyone had the view that the fetus is a living human being and that it can be still be terminated on a whim because of personal sovereignty. Castle laws establish that I can kill intruders in my home because of personal sovereignty and implied threat. It doesn't allow me to snuff my teenager for disobedience. Based on this, I'd still expect any sovereignty argument to hinge on the status of the fetus as human or not.

MediumTex wrote: The thing I have never understood is why the most intense pro-life/anti-choice advocates rarely want to punish women who get abortions in the same way that society punishes premeditated murder.  That tells me that even in their minds there is some difference between having an abortion and killing another person.

I would say there a many factors. One is political reality. Another is extenuating circumstances. Often, young girls feel they have no choice other than termination. For example, single mother struggling to make ends meet. That is not a real "choice".

This is why there is much work to offer practical assistance by people who see great injustice in abortion. To actually help girls to feel they have a choice, and not be pressured into something that often leads to regret.

MediumTex wrote:

murphy_p_t wrote:

melveyr wrote: The debate doesn't have to be about what defines life. It can be about where jurisdictions lie.

There really is no debate about where life begins...it has been settled scientific fact for decades. I agree with you that those who support abortion on demand need to try to formulate another argument.

If people are disagreeing about it, I would say that there is a debate.

From a scientific view, I'm not aware of any debate. Above, I presented a document from PP.

For additional evidence of my statement, please see this report on scientists testifying before the US Senate.

http://www.epm.org/resources/2010/Mar/8 ... onception/

From the article:
"Professor Micheline Matthews-Roth, Harvard University Medical School: “It is incorrect to say that biological data cannot be decisive.... It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception.... Our laws, one function of which is to help preserve the lives of our people, should be based on accurate scientific data.”?

Dr. Watson A. Bowes, University of Colorado Medical School: “The beginning of a single human life is from a biological point of view a simple and straightforward matter—the beginning is conception. This straightforward biological fact should not be distorted to serve sociological, political, or economic goals.”?


If you're aware of scientists, MDs, etc, with expertise in the relevant biological field, who offer scientific proof that human life begins at some time other than fertilization, please share.

Denying scientific fact does not constitute a debate, in my view.

murphy_p_t wrote:

MediumTex wrote:

murphy_p_t wrote: There really is no debate about where life begins...it has been settled scientific fact for decades. I agree with you that those who support abortion on demand need to try to formulate another argument.

If people are disagreeing about it, I would say that there is a debate.

From a scientific view, I'm not aware of any debate. Above, I presented a document from PP.

For additional evidence of my statement, please see this report on scientists testifying before the US Senate.

http://www.epm.org/resources/2010/Mar/8 ... onception/

From the article:
"Professor Micheline Matthews-Roth, Harvard University Medical School: “It is incorrect to say that biological data cannot be decisive.... It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception.... Our laws, one function of which is to help preserve the lives of our people, should be based on accurate scientific data.”?

Dr. Watson A. Bowes, University of Colorado Medical School: “The beginning of a single human life is from a biological point of view a simple and straightforward matter—the beginning is conception. This straightforward biological fact should not be distorted to serve sociological, political, or economic goals.”?

If you're aware of scientists, MDs, etc, with expertise in the relevant biological field, who suggest otherwise, please share.

Denying scientific fact does not constitute a debate, in my view.

I'm not talking about the scientific view.  I am talking about the public discussion and the points on which people disagree, including the question of when life begins.

People have all sorts of irrational beliefs, and it doesn't surprise me at all that many people choose to believe that life begins at birth--thus, there is a debate.

It's not unlike belief in the supernatural, belief that the climate is not changing, etc.  People believe what they want to believe, and trying to corner them with scientific analysis of their beliefs often does nothing to erode the strength or their convictions.

We're dealing with people here.  You have to allow for a certain degree of irrationality and there are no "killer arguments" based upon science-based reasoning. 

Establishing a truth to the satisfaction of a scientist is sort of like building a car to the satisfaction of an engineer.  While important, it's just the first step in gaining wider acceptance of the soundness of the idea in the marketplace.

Very true MT, although GOOD science can be persuasive.  We still have a few flat earth holdouts, but science was eventually able to change opinions on that issue. Similarly with evolution, which is a decent comparison since it has a strong religious component.

I don't think that suggesting science can't be used to change social views is accurate.

RuralEngineer wrote: I don't think that suggesting science can't be used to change social views is accurate.

I agree that the truth about the biological world will eventually come to be accepted, but it may take a LONG time.

I think that a woman who has the ability to support a child but chooses not to is a very different situation from the woman who literally does not have the emotional, psychological, social or financial tools to take care of a baby.  The former case is one where I think that science can provide some inroads.  In the latter case, I think that throughout history women in these situations have practiced abortion/infanticide, and I don't know if establishing the scientific truth of prenatal life will have much impact on this sort of thing.

But everything I say on this topic is said with a lot of ambivalence.  Any position I try to come up with seems flawed, short of avoiding all unwanted pregnancies in the first place.

My personal advice to anyone who asked me for guidance about an unwanted pregnancy would be to rule out abortion and only consider other options.

I agree that the most powerful tool we have for simplifying the debate is better means of preventing unwanted pregnancy. There has been a lot of research that suggests allowing women to control when they bear children has an extremely positive effect on society. Hopefully we get there someday.

Been away for a while so I might be a bit late responding here....

I've long thought that the Republican party's "moral" platform is completely inconsistent, and clearly designed as vote-getting hot-button issues.  At least in the Catholic church, abortion falls under the "respect for life" doctrine, which ALSO applies to capital punishment, charitable works, etc.  And, whatever I may think of abortion, I don't feel it's my place to insist on applying criminal penalties to parties that for whatever reason decide it's right for them.  It is a debate, which means it's not clear that one side is correct and the other is wrong in all instances.

Also just to comment on some earlier posts:  I agree with MG & PS that morality and religion don't necessarily align.  If you're looking for modern examples, how about 9/11?  And the murder of a woman and her baby by a fundamentalist LDS relative (see Jon Krakauer's book, "Under the Banner of Heaven" for an in-depth exploration).  And, many of the most corrupt countries (such as Kenya) have a strong religious tradition.  The U.S., on the other hand, recently ranked 19th in a measure of corruption (sorry I forget where I read that).  The 3 least corrupt countries, i.e. the top 3 on the list (Denmark, Finland, and New Zealand) are very much secular societies. 

So, the idea that a political platform is strengthened by adding religion to the mix doesn't fly with an increasingly large portion of the US population.  Worse yet, these views are mixed with racism, sexism and such elements that many people find morally repugnant.  On balance, I find the Democratic platform to be far more "moral" than the Republican one, and for many people that outweighs the fiscal considerations.

murphy_p_t wrote: Denying scientific fact does not constitute a debate, in my view.

No one is denying anything.  "Beginning of human life" is not the same thing as a "human being".  Do you hypocritically eat animal flesh, caviar, plants or other life forms?  News flash: death and killing is a normal, unemotional part of the universe that we live in.  The only emotion is moral relativism from the conscientious perspective of human beings.  The universe could care less what you personally think.

Sovereignty is implicit in being a human being along with the other characteristics I mentioned; a fetus, embryo or zygote is not sovereign.

This is all besides the point, though.  Making the debate about what point a "human being" exists is simply irrelevant for a well-functioning society.  It is not your property and not your life form!  The middle ground is with abortion being legal with public persuasion strongly against it.  We are already there.  There is no need for further debate.

MachineGhost wrote:

murphy_p_t wrote: Denying scientific fact does not constitute a debate, in my view.

No one is denying anything.  "Beginning of human life" is not the same thing as a "human being".  Do you hypocritically eat animal flesh, caviar, plants or other life forms?  News flash: death and killing is a normal, unemotional part of the universe that we live in.  The only emotion is moral relativism from the conscientious perspective of human beings.  The universe could care less what you personally think.

Sovereignty is implicit in being a human being along with the other characteristics I mentioned; a fetus, embryo or zygote is not sovereign.

I am a meat eater. I don't feel in the least hypocritical.

Is it a reasonable extrapolation to infer that you have no ethical issue with eating aborted fetuses? I'm not trying to offend anyone, but that seems to follow from your statement.

This is all besides the point, though.  Making the debate about what point a "human being" exists is simply irrelevant for a well-functioning society.  It is not your property and not your life form! 

A parallel argument was used in deciding the infamous Dred Scott decision.

murphy_p_t wrote: Is it a reasonable extrapolation to infer that you have no ethical issue with eating aborted fetuses? I'm not trying to offend anyone, but that seems to follow from your statement.

I do not because I am fully aware of my human hubris to eat whatever animal or its abortions (eggs, fetuses) as I please, simply because I have decided that my continuing existence matters more than any other life form or potential life form in this universe.  I'm also fully aware of the hypocrisy I engage in, which is why I feel I have a more reasonable voice on abortion than someone dwelling in intentional ignorance for sake of faith-based emotional platitudes.  Does that mean I never feel guilty that I have to take a life to eat it?  Of course not.

(Now before anyone gets too upset, please understand the context!)

A parallel argument was used in deciding the infamous Dred Scott decision.

But slaves Blacks were autonomous, independent, volitional entities per se.  Barring some scientific breakthrough in proving consciousness or a soul is in a fetus before its born, I don't foresee our increasingly secular society coming around to a similar conclusion.

Well alrighty then. I got my answer. MG equates human beings with fish or insects. It doesn't matter if a fetus is human or not because its "property" and can be destroyed on a whim. FYI, "human life" and "human being" are synonymous and interchangeable. It's why a coma or severe brain injury doesn't change a person's status. It's also why severely mentally disabled individuals are still human, despite not being autonomous, independent, or volitional.

As for what it is about birth that bestows the "soul" that makes them human, I'm going to describe your position as magic, for lack of a better term. As for consciousness, proving that is present before birth is exceedingly simple. Nothing about birth alters the mental state of the child. There are accounts of fetuses interacting with surgeons during intrauterine operations.

I do find the dismissal of any debate over the morality of the issue disturbing because it so closely mirrors similar arguments used to justify any number of atrocities in human history. If a person doesn't elevate human life above that if simple organisms like fish though, I suppose it might make sense. In any case, not my cross to bear.

MachineGhost wrote:

murphy_p_t wrote: Is it a reasonable extrapolation to infer that you have no ethical issue with eating aborted fetuses? I'm not trying to offend anyone, but that seems to follow from your statement.

I do not because I am fully aware of my human hubris to eat whatever animal or its abortions (eggs, fetuses) as I please, simply because I have decided that my continuing existence matters more than any other life form or potential life form in this universe.  I'm also fully aware of the hypocrisy I engage in, which is why I feel I have a more reasonable voice on abortion than someone dwelling in intentional ignorance for sake of faith-based emotional platitudes.  Does that mean I never feel guilty that I have to take a life to eat it?  Of course not.

(Now before anyone gets too upset, please understand the context!)

I understand. Your moral code permits you to eat aborted fetuses without reservation.

May I ask who your influences are that perhaps helped you reach this outlook?

Also, I note that this is the 3rd or 4th reference to those with religious or faith based context to the abortion question. However, as Rural Engineer pointed out, only your argument comes close to a fiat-based argument in this thread. Why do you continue to mention religion/faith in the context of this thread when no one else is using that as a reference.

Also, thank you for your candor.

MachineGhost wrote: "Beginning of human life" is not the same thing as a "human being". 

This point seems to be at the crux of your argument. This is a distinction which has never occurred to me in those terms. Can you share how you arrived at this conclusion, maybe who you read that gave you this idea...or maybe its an original idea of yours?