Wednesday, September 28, 2016

Silencing the Opposition


Over at Atheism Analyzed, Stan has lost his cool again.  Or perhaps it's the case that he never had any "cool" in the first place.  One thing's for certain: if you present a serious challenge to his incessant stream of ideological propaganda and outright lies, you will not be allowed to comment in his safe space for bullshit.

Stan considers himself to be the epitome of rational thinking.  He has a number of featured posts on his blog that attempt to "educate" his readers on the logical incoherence of atheism (a topic that I have discussed before, and found that his own logic suffers from some serious flaws).  Stan also is an avid denier of climate science, and especially evolution theory, a topic that I addressed here.  When he is challenged on these things, his responses tend to be emotional and loaded with ad hominem attacks.  And one of the emotional responses he is prone to make is to ban the challenger.

I was banned from his blog some time ago, but that's not  so much what this article is about.  I understand that my own style of argumentation can be abrasive, and that I tend to get under the skin of people like Stan, not so much by engaging in ad hominem attacks against them as by persistently calling out their lies and hypocrisy.  They don't want to hear that.  They prefer to post their stuff and then bask in the glowing adoration of their loving admirers in the echo chamber.  Stan wants to be revered by his followers as a master of logic and science, who refutes atheists and scientists whose theories disagree with his own dogmatic positions.

That's why it seems curious that he would create "discussion zones" for ongoing debate on the topics of atheism, evolution, and abortion.  He is actually inviting people to argue their points with him and anyone else who cares to join in.  And he tolerates these dissenting views - up to a point.  As long as he feels that he is in control, and his own claims haven't been challenged with sufficient force to make him feel that he is no longer the dominant intellect in the discussion, he allows people to disagree, and then he deals with their comments by either dismissing them with a barrage of accusations of logical fallacies, or simply re-asserting his own dogmatic position.  When he starts to feel that he is losing his position of dominance in the discussion, he resorts to personal attacks (and this is not uncommon).

He has now banned Hugo Pelland from making any further comments.  And this is particularly irritating to me.  Hugo is a model of civil and rational discussion in the face of dogmatic and irrational argumentation.  He has commented on my blog to chastise my abrasiveness, and I suppose he's right, but honestly, I don't have a problem with getting under the thin skin of conceited zealots like Stan.  But that's not Hugo's style.  The debate in question occurs in the Evolution Discussion Zone mentioned above.  Hugo, as always, is rational and focused on facts.  His only sin is to refuse to back down on his claims regarding the scientific facts that refute Stan's dogmatic belief in anti-science propaganda.  And this is a shame.  Hugo was Stan's best hope for laying any claim to being willing to carry on a reasoned discourse with those who are not members of his own ideological camp.

Once again, Stan has shown that he can't tolerate the voice of opposition when he doesn't know how to answer their arguments.  His blog is a safe space for the most zealous religiously motivated science denialism.  As long as you go along with that, Stan's happy to hear from you.  But if you're not an adoring fan, you're on thin ice.  Show him evidence, and he'll deny it has any validity.  Point out that he's wrong, and it will get you banned.  That's the strength of his position.  Nobody can refute Stan, because he won't allow persistent rationality on his blog.


104 comments:

  1. Stan must be correct because how else can you explain his God given power to ban people?

    ReplyDelete
  2. I scanned a few of his articles and comments. What a compendium of misunderstanding, misinformation and confusion.

    There should be a warning label that alerts people with SIWOTI syndrome to avoid the site.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you'd like to see one of Stan's masterpieces of misunderstanding, misinformation and confusion, check out this article. Stan's understanding of entropy is so fundamentally flawed, it is clearly incoherent.

      If you follow his logic, then rain could never happen and mountains could never rise because only "intentional" systems (such as living things) have the ability to lift things to higher energy states.

      Animate living things, especially higher forms, can go up hill, by first wanting to go there, then by purposefully implementing energy conversion into an increase in altitude. They can take rocks up hill by wanting to do that, then implementing that, intentionally.

      But crystal structures are explained as not constituting any increase in order because they involve a decrease of energy. Yes, Stan actually thinks that crystals are less organized (and therefore higher entropy) than free-floating atoms.

      Despite his use of a few fifty-cent words that undoubtedly fool many of his readers, he has absolutely no idea what he's talking about.

      Delete
  3. It seems obvious to me that Stan's knowledge on science and philosophy comes from secondary sources such as wikipedia. It doesn't look like he has formal education in either field or has extensively studied textbooks on those fields. A first year philosophy student taking an introductory logic course would laugh at any of his logic posts.

    Unfortunately, he presents himself as a quasi expert on many things, and credulous people will believe him. People without familiarity on science or philosophy won't know the difference between Stan's poor understanding of the fields vs expert understandings of the fields, and if Stan's posts happen to be what a credulous person wants to believe then they probably won't even bother questioning him.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I see that the latest discussion in Stan's Evolution zone has turned to you.

      Delete
  4. Weird. It seems Stan is saying anything in the sciences can be reduced to logical properties, so anyone capable of analyzing logical properties is eligible to debate any scientific subject. If that is what he is claiming then he is obviously incorrect. Having no background in biology nor chemistry, I simply cannot debate subjects within the scope of those fields. I have taken logic courses, and regularly brush up on classical and non classical logics, but that doesn't help me understand what an amino acid chain is, nor how photosynthesis works.

    His response mostly looks like what an amateur apologist would write after reading about logic and Aristotle from wikipedia. For example, there is no single "fundamentals of logic". The fundamentals of classical logic differs from the fundamentals of intuitionistic logic, which differs from the fundamentals of multi-valued logics...

    JB is precisely one of the people I think is negatively affected by people such as Stan. He doesn't seem to have a grasp on basic logic or anything in the sciences, and he already believes what Stan believes so he ends up taking Stan's word as gospel.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Hey im-skeptical,

    Thanks for the flattering comments!

    It's funny because I would have probably missed that post if it were not for something completely unrelated... I was looking at what Stan has posted on Milo Yiannopoulos in the past, and one search results linked to your blog.

    In any case, I am glad I saw it; it's the first time ever that someone writes about something I wrote. And I appreciate the context especially, since I did genuinely try to have a civil conversation with Stan, only to be banned... again. It's fascinating how pinpointing the exact thing he got wrong got him so mad, so emotional! I think it only confirms that this is indeed the 1 thing that he gets wrong, and which informs his entire view of the Theory of Evolution.

    As Ryan said, none of us are Evolutionary Biologists, but we can still point out where specialists are unanimous, or not, and whether they agree with amateurs like Stan, who writes on the topic as if facts were on his side. In this case, there is no doubt that his belief in some sort of 'perfect' cell machinery is completely wrong, anti-scientific, and implies an un-avowed belief in Intelligent Design and the creation of irreducible complexity outside of evolutionary mechanisms. In that world, cells are not just described using human factories as analogy; cells literally are factories, which fail only because of external intrusion, but never because of the cell's imperfect internal processes.

    As I summarized on his blog, Stan confuses the complexity and reliability of the cell machinery with intentional design. And that's where his rejection of the entire field of Evolutionary Biology comes from. When asked to support this specific view that cells are perfect machines, he rejected the challenge and got defensive, he illogically asked to prove the opposite, and he even argued that biology shows how lasting mutations are impossible, by quoting research he does not fully understand, written by biologists who completely disagree with him on the big picture.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Stan has plenty of support from the creationist community, where you can find a wealth of pseudo-scientific literature that feed these ridiculous beliefs. And it's not just biology. It's physics, too. As I noted above, Stan believes that all living things violate the second law of thermodynamics, and we see this violation in every intentional act. Never mind the fact that physics describes these things as laws precisely because we never see anything, living or otherwise, that violates them. And this has all been explained to Stan. But people like Pogge promote this kind of garbage, and Stan laps it up.

      Delete
    2. Well, that didn't take long :-)

      " You actually are an ignorant troll, a pretender to knowledge which you obviously don’t have and don’t even care about. You're only interested in wasting the time of real people. So, you’re done here.

      You are banned. Go whine to Hugo, OK?
      https://atheism-analyzed.blogspot.com/2016/09/moderation-is-on.html?showComment=1475795386885#c4609717259572533492
      "

      I think what really pissed him off was my continual questioning of his science background. From his writing he obviously does not understand the basics of what science is, how it is done, what it tells us, and what it does not tell us.

      He claims to be an engineer with 33 years experience but when I asked him if hew was a non-degreed engineer and if he ever took any university science classes he never answered, only banned me!!!

      It seems to me I got the answer, I mean, this guy was citing the formation of the moon as an event that would disturb the geologic column and the fossil record of biological evolution. He might not ever have taken a high school science class, much less a university science class of any sort.

      Delete
    3. His ignorance of science is stunning.

      Delete
  6. Hi Hugo,
    Unfortunately, you got banned over there, so I hope it is OK to ask you here about this statement of yours there:
    "After two threads and over 120 comments, it is clear that my position is based on the viability of the fetus. I consider it immoral to kill a fetus that would otherwise survive outside of the womb"
    Why is viability a measure of the intrinsic humanity of each of us as we developed into human beings?

    What happens to your viability criteria when technology pushes survival outside a biological mother back to 18 weeks, 12 weeks, 4 weeks, 4 seconds?

    I will suggest to you what I consider to a more rational criteria, brain function.

    We dertermine the end of life according the the end of brain function. In my view the life of an individual human being begins at brain function.

    Immediately we see a problem of degree and measurability in my view. Nevertheless I think that is a technical problem, not a problem of principle.

    Let's consider your view, which is the view of the SCOTUS as well. Can a newborn baby survive on its own? Is killing a coma patient moral? If you were wrapped up in a tight bag of water and rendered unconscious would lose your intrinsic humanity such that killing you would then be OK? Hopefully you will answer "no" to these questions intended to be analogous in some respects to the condition of an unborn child, and from those negative responses you might understand my view of when each of us achieved our individual humanity.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Relying on brain function might be a decent start, but it might also be worth considering more specific facts such as types of brain functions. For example, whether the brain is capable of rational thought and self awareness. I think many people might actually identify death more so with the loss of particular brain functions such as those rather than full brain death. In a case like that, the fact that a fetus has some brain function would not be sufficient to determine that it is the sort of life with a right to live.

      Delete
    2. What happens to your viability criteria when technology pushes survival outside a biological mother back to 18 weeks, 12 weeks, 4 weeks, 4 seconds?

      Obviously, it is possible to sustain an embryo in a test tube, but I think he means viability without artificial support.

      Delete
    3. "Obviously, it is possible to sustain an embryo in a test tube, but I think he means viability without artificial support"
      Ok, but what exactly is "artificial support"?

      The only way a 20 week baby can survive outside the womb is with high technology support in a modern neonatal intensive care facility. This fact is referenced in SCOTUS decisions which raise the likelihood that viability will be pushed even further back with the advance of technology.

      Further, even a healthy full term new born human being, unlike those of other species, is entirely helpless and will soon die without external support, a condition that persists for a number of years.

      Why would the fact one requires support determine our intrinsic individual humanity? A patient connect to a life sustaining machine requires artificial support. Does that requirement for artificial support make that person no longer an individual living human being, subject to termination?

      No, in my view we are each individual human beings irrespective of the physical location of our bodies or the means by which our lives are sustained. That seems to me to be the only rationally consistent position to take.

      Delete
    4. To be fair, abortion debates do not always discuss whether a fetus is a human. Often they debate whether a fetus is a person, or if personhood is a necessary condition for having a right to life. Since personhood is distinct from humanhood, debates revolving around personhood can simply assume fetuses are human.

      Delete
    5. Ryan is right. When you say "we are each individual human beings", you are really talking about personhood. My hand is human, but it's not a human being. It is part of my body, and it does not live when separated from my body (unless you put it in some machine that sustains bloodflow). If I cut off my hand, I don't get charged with murder.

      Likewise, an egg is part of a woman's body. It is not a person. When does it become a person? That's a matter of opinion. There in no universal agreement, and our opinions are often motivated by ideological factors, such as religious beliefs.

      So to answer the question, you must first define what constitutes personhood. But if you think everybody should agree with your opinion, you're dreaming.

      Delete
  7. "Since personhood is distinct from humanhood"
    By that standard then perhaps you agree with so-called post birth abortion.

    My original question to Hugo was why viability? What is so special about reaching the stage whereby one can be kept alive outside the womb buy usage of high tech machines?

    Upon careful analysis I believe the viability standard fails as a test of intrinsic human worth, our right to life, our individual humanity, our humanhood, our personhood or whatever you wish to call it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't know why he chooses viability. But yes, I think arguments which focus on personhood do imply that infanticide is permissible.

      Delete
    2. "But yes, I think arguments which focus on personhood do imply that infanticide is permissible. "
      I am kind of hoping that is a negative thing for you!

      If X allows for infanticide I think that discredits X generally and in particular disqualifies X in matters pertaining to medical ethics of any sort.

      Infanticide is illegal and a matter of settled law as well as near universal agreement against it and in favor of anti-infanticide laws.

      If personhood arguments lead to an allowance for infanticide I think that disqualifies such arguments from serious consideration.

      Delete
  8. "Likewise, an egg is part of a woman's body."
    Not once it erupts and travels along the fallopian tube.

    My child once swallowed a penny. It came out the other end (we physically confirmed this to verify it had not gotten stuck). Was that penny a part of her body while traveling through her digestive tract? No, I think not.

    Objects inserted into our orifices do not become a part of our body. When the egg erupts it leaves the woman's body and enters one of her body cavities.

    As the child develops he or she does so as a unique individual human being. Mother and child are so distinct that the baby's blood type may be incompatible with the mother's, but this is not a problem because they do not share blood.

    The baby has his or her own brain, heart, and whole set of organs.

    "you must first define what constitutes personhood."
    Indeed. I see nothing special about reaching the stage of support by machines as a definition of personhood. No significant change in the brain occurs at birth. Moving an individual from inside a water bag to outside that water bag does not change the inherent properties of that individual.

    Hence my rejection of the viability standard.

    As I stated at the outset, in my view, the onset of brain function defines becoming an individual human being, or if you prefer, personhood.

    Exactly how much brain function is a grey area requiring more research. However, it should be clear that without a brain there is no brain function. I think it should also be clear that little changes in brain function between say week 19 and week 20.

    I do not pretend to be a neuroscientist, so I would like to see a careful study of brain activity measurement as used as a criteria to pull the plug on patients judged to be brain dead and apply that standard at the beginning of life.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not once it erupts and travels along the fallopian tube.
      - So I suppose you don't think blood is part of the body.

      The baby has his or her own brain, heart, and whole set of organs.
      - True. A baby has been born, and that is the traditional and legal beginning of personhood. A fetus, however, hasn't been born, and is generally not considered to be a person. But as I noted, that's a matter of opinion.

      As I stated at the outset, in my view, the onset of brain function defines becoming an individual human being, or if you prefer, personhood.
      - I'm sure there is brain activity long before there is any significant cognitive function.

      Delete
    2. "- So I suppose you don't think blood is part of the body"
      Not once it leaves the body, no.

      "A baby has been born, and that is the traditional and legal beginning of personhood."
      No. Under the law in most of the USA an unborn child is defined as a person for the purpose of protecting that person's life. According to the SCOTUS that protection may begin at viability, and absent any medical tests to the contrary there is a presumption of viability at 20 weeks.

      By tradition parents speak of their baby in utero, as in "how is the baby doing", or "you can feel the baby kick", or "we lost the baby".

      " But as I noted, that's a matter of opinion."
      It is also a matter of law and logic, no mere matter of personal taste.

      "- I'm sure there is brain activity long before there is any significant cognitive function."
      Indeed, so how much and what sort of brain activity is considered to indicate a patient is still alive?

      Delete
    3. You sound just like a Christian. You should look of definitions for "baby" or "infant" and "fetus". Only in the recent anti-abortion movement has there been an effort to re-define words to assign personhood to a fetus by calling it a "baby" or a "child". And as for the viability of a fetus, you should see this.

      Delete
    4. "You sound just like a Christian"
      That's OK, Christians are not all wrong about everything.

      "You should look of definitions for "baby" or "infant" and "fetus"."
      Dictionary definitions are important, but not the only thing that is important in understanding word meanings. You referred to the "traditional and legal". There is also the medical, and the dictionary. So, lots of things on the table.

      I don't know your personal experiences but in mine it is very common tradition to call the unborn child just that, an unborn child. I did not invent that term. Nor did I invent the prevalence of calling the unborn child a baby. If you are not aware of these traditions perhaps you are not a parent or you somehow have an experience among expecting parents much different than mine.

      "And as for the viability of a fetus, you should see this."
      Thanks for the link but those subjects are already quite familiar to me. That particular link did not get into the fetal homicide laws, the rulings on 20 week presumption of viability, the explicit definition of the unborn as persons in numerous state laws, and a few other aspects of how the unborn are labeled, protected, and killed.

      My original question to Hugo was essentially "why viability?" He has not joined in and that's OK if he is not interested or whatever.

      BTW, I never heard of this guy Stan, so I went over there and made some posts. He put them up after a little while in the moderation queue and responded to several but my further responses to his responses have been stuck in queue for quite a long time now, so we'll see how that goes...

      Delete
    5. I don't know your personal experiences but in mine it is very common tradition to call the unborn child just that, an unborn child. I did not invent that term.
      - That terminology was brought into common usage by the anti-abortion crowd after Roe v Wade.

      "why viability?"
      - Why not? People don't agree about this question. Your opinion is different from his (and mine).

      Delete
    6. "why viability?"
      "- Why not?"
      That seems to be a rather superficial response. If one is going to establish a criteria for something as serious and consequential as the dividing line between legal and illegal abortion I would hope you could do better than merely "why not".

      I did. I have explained at length my specific reasoning against the viability standard and for the brain function standard.

      Trump said "why not" in the first debate in his usual shallow and bombastic way. Hillary handled it masterfully, mocking him in a dismissive repeat of his vapid question.

      "People don't agree about this question. Your opinion is different from his (and mine)."
      We are not throwing darts or flipping coins here. This is not I like indigo and you like your favorite color.

      You apparently have no substantial argumentation to make on this subject, so fine, perhaps this is simply not something you have considered in depth or care to discuss in detail.

      Delete
    7. I quote your statement:

      "I see nothing special about reaching the stage of support by machines as a definition of personhood. No significant change in the brain occurs at birth. Moving an individual from inside a water bag to outside that water bag does not change the inherent properties of that individual.

      Hence my rejection of the viability standard."


      So you reject viability as a valid criterion for personhood simply because it may be possible to sustain a fetus through artificial means, which is not what we generally mean by "viability" when discussing this topic?

      And when I point out that brain activity may not be a reasonable way to determine the level of function that constitutes what YOU would consider to be worthy of personhood, that there is much disagreement about what constitutes personhood, and why should your opinion carry more weight than the rest of the world, then you tell me that I am being "superficial, an I have "no substantial argumentation to make on this subject", comparing me to someone who is "shallow and bombastic".

      I'm sorry that you can't see the importance of viability in this discussion. But the fact that you so easily dismiss it reveals the shallowness of your own argument. I don't dismiss the importance of brain function, but the situation might be a little more complex than you think.

      Delete
    8. "So you reject viability as a valid criterion for personhood simply because it may be possible to sustain a fetus through artificial means, which is not what we generally mean by "viability" when discussing this topic?"
      No, in a couple respects.

      First, I reject the viability standard because in my view each of us has an intrinsic right to life which is independent of our physical location or the level of assistance we are receiving in order to sustain that life.

      Second, you are simply mistaken about the meaning of viability under the law. Post viability abortion is illegal in 43 states. Viability is defined as the ability to survive in a modern neonatal care hospital ward with the aid of advanced technology. That's the law from the SCOTUS to statutes.

      "why should your opinion carry more weight than the rest of the world"
      As a matter of argument from authority, it shouldn't. I am arguing from reason. Do you have an intrinsic right to life? Is that right forfeited by your physical location, you being in an unconscious state, or you receiving life support by outside means?

      If you maintain your right to life under these circumstances then reason dictates that an unborn child has the same right to life irrespective of these same sorts of circumstances.

      "comparing me to someone who is "shallow and bombastic"."
      I am not saying you are Donald Trump, just that you share that particular response with him. "Why not" is not a response with any depth of meaning.

      "I'm sorry that you can't see the importance of viability in this discussion."
      Nobody has provided a rational argument for its importance. Obviously, it is very important legally, but that legal ruling is what I am arguing against on rational grounds.

      " But the fact that you so easily dismiss it reveals the shallowness of your own argument."
      Easily dismissed? No, I have analyzed the situation in significant detail, considering factors of life support, location, consciousness, bodily independence, brain function, body function, law, and intrinsic humanity.

      It is on the basis of that analysis I reject the viability standard as a measure of ones intrinsic right to life.





      Delete
    9. First, I reject the viability standard because in my view each of us has an intrinsic right to life which is independent of our physical location or the level of assistance we are receiving in order to sustain that life.
      - This statement is based on a presumption of personhood. What do you mean by "us", and how should it be determined whether something or someone is one of "us"? You reject the most common criterion for making that determination based on your vague and implicit assumption.

      Second, you are simply mistaken about the meaning of viability under the law. Post viability abortion is illegal in 43 states. Viability is defined as the ability to survive in a modern neonatal care hospital ward with the aid of advanced technology. That's the law from the SCOTUS to statutes.
      - Show me the references for this. As far as I can tell, legal determinations of viability are based on statistics more than anything else.

      I am arguing from reason. Do you have an intrinsic right to life? Is that right forfeited by your physical location, you being in an unconscious state, or you receiving life support by outside means?
      - Again, the presumption of personhood without any way of making the determination of what constitutes a person. But this as at the heart of the debate.

      If you maintain your right to life under these circumstances then reason dictates that an unborn child has the same right to life irrespective of these same sorts of circumstances.
      - Again, the presumption of personhood without any way of making the determination of what constitutes a person.

      I am not saying you are Donald Trump, just that you share that particular response with him. "Why not" is not a response with any depth of meaning.
      - I asked you a question that you have still not provided a reasonable answer to.

      Nobody has provided a rational argument for its importance. Obviously, it is very important legally, but that legal ruling is what I am arguing against on rational grounds.
      - No, you are not. You are making presumptions of personhood not based on any rational grounds that I can discern. Even if you claim that brain function determines personhood, you haven't defined what that function is, and you certainly haven't described any means by which it can be objectively determined. Your "rational grounds" is nothing more than a feeling you have about personhood.

      Delete
    10. "- This statement is based on a presumption of personhood. What do you mean by "us","
      Humanity, the whole population of living human beings.

      "- Show me the references for this. As far as I can tell, legal determinations of viability are based on statistics more than anything else."
      Ok, fair enough. We all know of Roe v. Wade. Other rulings, less known, are nevertheless very important. A lot has changed since 1973.

      Planned Parenthood v. Casey ended the trimester framework and instituted the viability standard (though it was a plurality decision,and thus to be implemented narrowly, hence the importance of subsequent majority affirmation). In it is language acknowledging the age of viability at the time of Roe v. Wade, the age at the time of Casey, and the prospect of that age changing in the future.

      Webster v. Reproductive Health Services upheld a presumption of viability at 20 weeks unless medical tests demonstrated the fetus is not viable.

      Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt was primarily about striking down undue burden laws that were plainly intended to be a backdoor method to deny access to legal abortions, but the decision also affirmed the viability standard of Casey.

      Guttmacher publishes summaries of abortion laws state by state but it boils down to most states banning abortion after viability by that word, or some number of weeks such as 22. 7 states plus DC do not ban post-viability abortions with in utero killing and induced still birth technically legal in those major jurisdictions.

      In New Mexico, USA, a woman can get an elective (no medical indications, so called abortion on demand) up to 28 weeks, clearly far beyond viability by modern standards.

      If you really need links I can get many but these are well documented on line. The SCOTUS publishes full text, and the search terms produce many hits and wiki pages.

      Delete
    11. ***I am arguing from reason. Do you have an intrinsic right to life? Is that right forfeited by your physical location, you being in an unconscious state, or you receiving life support by outside means?***
      "- Again, the presumption of personhood without any way of making the determination of what constitutes a person. But this as at the heart of the debate."
      You did not answer the questions. Why? They were very specific. You seem to be saying "personhood" just is, and what it just is is just some kind of feeling immune to rational analysis.


      ***If you maintain your right to life under these circumstances then reason dictates that an unborn child has the same right to life irrespective of these same sorts of circumstances.***
      "- Again, the presumption of personhood without any way of making the determination of what constitutes a person. "
      Again, not an answer to the questions of what sorts of things do and do not disqualify one from being a living human being, or as you might say "personhood".

      "You are making presumptions of personhood not based on any rational grounds that I can discern."
      OK, you are not discerning, you are ignoring the line of reasoning I have laid out again and again.

      " Even if you claim that brain function determines personhood, you haven't defined what that function is"
      That is a matter of present law and medical practice at the end of life. I am willing to defer to those legal and medical standards for brain function applied to the beginning of life.

      I know I have changed pavement when I drive from asphalt to gravel. In my view it is crystal clear logic to say I have also changed pavement when I drive from gravel to asphalt.

      The blacktop begins when I drive from gravel to asphalt, and the blacktop ends when I drive from asphalt to gravel.

      Human life, a life worth protecting, a life that is illegal to fail to sustain, ends when brain function ends. Very simple logic states therefore that such a life begins when brain function begins.

      Perhaps it is an issue of consciousness? The unborn child is not conscious therefore the unborn child may be killed? Is killing the unconscious to be legalized generally? Perhaps if one day you get knocked out accidentally that will make it ok to kill you? Hopefully you are not in favor of legalizing homicide of the unconscious.

      Is it the physical location that allows us to kill a functioning brain? In what physical location may we put you such that we may kill you? None you say? Indeed.

      Is it an issue of dependency? A brain dependent upon others or one other for sustenance may then be killed? When you are connected to a machine that is required for your continued life shall I pull the plug on a whim? To hell you say? Indeed.

      "and you certainly haven't described any means by which it can be objectively determined. "
      By the same means, in principle, we as a society make that judgement at the end of life.

      "Your "rational grounds" is nothing more than a feeling you have about personhood."
      You seem to have some sort of investment in ignoring the clear rational arguments I have articulated again and again, then declaring my position to be some sort of mere unreasoned emotion. Why are you doing that?

      Delete
    12. Humanity, the whole population of living human beings.
      - OK. So you agree that "we" are people who have been born of a human woman? No. You think that "we" are any piece of embryonic flesh that can produce a blip on the EEG? Something in between? Why don't you just state your definition so that we know what the hell you mean?

      A lot has changed since 1973. ...
      - All these cases you cite confirm what I said. The standard set is a fixed age for determination of viability. And the basis for this is statistics. It is NOT, as you claim, based on any particular medical practices. So that contradicts what you said about the age regressing to zero.

      You did not answer the questions. Why? They were very specific. You seem to be saying "personhood" just is, and what it just is is just some kind of feeling immune to rational analysis.
      - I said no such thing. You are the one making the presumption of personhood, not me. And you still haven't said how you make any determination of personhood. It is you who refuse to answer the question that I have asked repeatedly.

      That is a matter of present law and medical practice at the end of life. I am willing to defer to those legal and medical standards for brain function applied to the beginning of life.
      - You don't know the difference between brain function and brain activity. They keep people on life support as long as there is some detectable activity in the brain. That says nothing at all about cognitive function, or whether the person is a total vegetable.

      Very simple logic states therefore that such a life begins when brain function begins.
      - Um, don't you mean "simplistic"?

      Hopefully you are not in favor of legalizing homicide of the unconscious.
      - I haven't stated what I'm in favor of. I'm trying to get you to define your terms and explain your position.

      Delete
  9. Hey, FYI, I just did not get the time to write yet; I wanted to put some thoughts into it... but I guess I can at least quickly say that I am open to factors other than just 'viability' when it comes to deciding when/whether abortion should be legal and/or ethical, which are 2 different questions imho.

    The thread on Stan's blog was incredibly long so you probably did not read through it all, but you might want to search for 'Rikalonius', who posted a few entries, and see my answers regarding his aunt who would, and I quote, "absolutely tear into you like she's tried to do with me because you suggest any limit on abortion prior to exiting the birth canal."

    To which I replied:
    "First of all, let me make something clear here: ~99% of abortions are performed before that 20-week mark that I mentioned. Hence, your aunt and I would not have very strong disagreement here as we both agree that safe and legal abortions are to be available for all women, at all times. That 1% of abortion that happens after the 20-week period are very different and usually not by choice, as I understand it, since the mother has plenty of time to decide whether she wanted to have a baby or not.

    Next, abortions performed very close to the 40-week mark are not really abortions as it's more like a c-section and the baby lives. The procedure is thus not called an abortion at all and the subsequent actions taken to end the life of the baby stand on their own.

    So, what would be my reaction to these suggestions that we should let the mother decide if the 30+-week fetus, or even born <1 year-old baby, should live or die? My gut reaction is pure disgust, as it sounds like killing a fully formed human that can live without dependence on the body of a mother. That baby can now be raised by anyone, not just the biological mother, and neglecting care for that infant is directly neglecting care to a person, just like any other child of any other age, who could not really survive totally on their own. However, gut reactions are not always correct, so I would like to hear arguments in favor of such positions. It seems to me that it would be very unlikely that I would get convinced.

    In short, I think that personhood relates to the independent viability of the human fetus. There is a line, at some point, between a human fetus without personhood and a human, with personhood, but it's really difficult to place that line. Hence, I think that abortion performed way before that line are definitely acceptable, while abortions performed way after that line are definitely not acceptable, by default, and require strong justifications should they be performed."

    I would need to read the entire thread here to see whether that fits with the items you guys discussed already. But I have to study for a final exam tomorrow night... priorities! :)

    ReplyDelete
  10. Hi Hugo
    " I just did not get the time to write yet; I wanted to put some thoughts into it"
    Well, don't waste your time arguing with some old fool on line when you have something important to do like study for an exam!!!

    All the best in whatever you are going for scholastically.

    I see you have a bracketing approach which makes sense and if you want we can explore the meaning of viability in greater detail but in the mean time just focus on your exam and all the best in your studies.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I say the SCOTUS struck the right balance with Roe V Wade. What's interesting is that its decision was made right at the time when in most, if not all States, abortion was a criminal offence. So it seems the court, in a 7-2 split, and despite the overwhelmingly prevailing populist notion that abortion was a criminal act, deemed such a position constitutionally indefensible. There have been numerous amendments made in fine-tuning the law. And it is not for want of trying from conservative judges to overturn the decision that the correctness of that original determination remains its most robust and enduring feature, with the bench repeatedly reaffirming Roe V Wade, over and over.

    The above citing is from the conservative Right to Life website lest I be charged with bias in the matter.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That well-balanced decision was made by justices who were appointed to the court mostly by Republicans. That was back when they were more interested in upholding the spirit of the constitution and the rights of the people than in partisan political activism. That changed with Reagan and the Bushes appointing right-wing extremists like Scalia and Thomas.

      Delete
  12. An intrinsic right to life is hard to define. Most people will accept that there are times where a person does not have a right to life. i.e. I do not have a right to life when I am unjustly threatening the life of an innocent person and taking my life is necessary to protect the life of the innocent person. If there are times when a person does not have a right to life then we cannot define an intrinsic right to life as a property which individuals have essentially or in every possible world. So, what would it be? We could narrow it down to "to say S has an intrinsic right to life is to say S has a right to life in any scenario of a class C". If we go that route then we can make a right to life contingent, but we would still need to define the scenarios in which a right to life exists.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Difficult questions, to be sure.

      Delete
    2. " I do not have a right to life when I am unjustly threatening the life of an innocent person and taking my life is necessary to protect the life of the innocent person"
      That's why there is a life or health exception to post viability abortion criminal law.

      " If there are times when a person does not have a right to life then we cannot define an intrinsic right to life as a property which individuals have essentially or in every possible world"
      We don't live in every possible world, we live on Earth, although you might have meant in every possible circumstance, but there are not really so very many possible sorts of circumstances in pregnancy. If you are suggesting there are so many possible variations on the situation that the problem becomes intractably complex in its permutations of circumstance you are mistaken. It really is not all that complicated.

      Rights do not cease to be rights because they come in conflict with and are superseded by other rights.

      "If we go that route then we can make a right to life contingent"
      All rights are contingent.

      "but we would still need to define the scenarios in which a right to life exists. "
      Indeed, and I have never heard from anyone in any setting any rational argument as to why viability is a logical demarcation in the transition from a non-human that may be disposed of like yesterday's garbage to a human being worthy of protection upon pain of criminal prosecution and punishment.

      To illustrate this general lack of rational justification for the viability standard allow me remind the good folks out there that under the law viability is defined as survival outside the womb with the aid of the most advanced technology available. The language of the SCOTUS clearly predicts and accommodates and acknowledges that viability in terms of weeks of gestational age will be changed with advances in technology.

      20 is not such a very large number. It is easy to regress to 0 by integer steps. This is simple grade school arithmetic.

      What happens to the the viability standard when technology advances to allow for the continued development into an healthy adult human being when the child is removed from the womb at week
      19
      18
      17
      16
      15
      14
      13
      12
      11
      10
      9
      8
      7
      6
      5
      4
      3
      2
      1
      0

      By the viability standard all abortions will eventually become illegal in the states that use the viability standard.

      Reductio ad absurdum shows the absurdity of the viability standard.

      When technology allows a human embryo to develop into a healthy adult human being outside the homo sapiens womb then an embryo will be, by definition, a viable human being.

      What developmental change occurs between week 19 and week 20 such that an individual at week 20 has the protection of criminal law on his or her side and anyone who seeks to harm the 20 week old may be prosecuted and jailed, in some states for life? Yet, just 1 week earlier, that same individual was not really an individual at all, rather, a mere lump of flesh that can be legally disposed of like a piece of garbage.

      Please educate me as to the great developmental leap such that a 19 week piece of garbage transforms into a 20 week precious human being.

      Delete
    3. Please educate me as to the great developmental leap such that a 19 week piece of garbage transforms into a 20 week precious human being.

      Please educate us as to the better standard that you have in mind, and how it would be applied in the real world.

      You already decided arbitrarily that an egg is no longer part of a woman's body once it travels into the Fallopian tube, but for some reason, blood ceases to be part of the body when it stops flowing through blood vessels and exits the body. Why the inconsistent standard, and why shouldn't a woman have control over what is in her own body?

      You said you think brain function is what determines personhood, but you have not said what particular kind or level of brain function, nor how to determine whether it is present in the fetus. But you think this is reasonable, while objectively determined viability is irrational.

      You state that a legal definition for viability exists that I have never seen, and I asked you for a reference, and you haven't provided it. So why should I believe that your reductio has any validity at all?

      Delete
    4. "We don't live in every possible world, we live on Earth"

      Possible worlds in philosophy do not literally refer to other planets.

      http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/possible-worlds/

      I'm not saying there are a great many possible circumstances within pregnancies that are relevant to the abortion debate. Rather, I am looking to see what "intrinsic right to life" means.

      I don't believe the viability standard is important, so I won't educate you on it merits. I will note though that we cannot necessarily deduce "Abortion is impermissible" from the assumption of the viability standard. We should consider the following:

      1. If there is some time t such that there exists at least one fetus which is not viable outside the womb at t then abortion is permissible in at least one case at t.
      2. There is some time t1 such that there exists at least one fetus which is not viable outside the womb at t1.
      3. Therefore, abortion is permissible in at least one case at t1.

      From the assumption of the viability standard you can only deduce that abortion is contingently permissible. While it is epistemically possible that future technology will make fetuses viable at week 0, it doesn't then follow that fetuses are always viable at week 0. A person advocating the viability standard can take the view that abortion at week 0 is permissible in 2016 but might be impermissible in 2030. The viability standard obviously would change when abortion is permissible as technology advances, but that isn't really a reductio of the viability standard. A reductio would challenge the truth of the standard but your example just shows that by the standard abortion could become impermissible in every case.

      Delete
    5. "You already decided arbitrarily that an egg is no longer part of a woman's body "
      Actually I gave the example of my child swallowing a penny, and the fact that at no time did it become a part of her body, rather, it passed through a body cavity.

      During sex the penis does not become part of the partner's body, despite being in one of several possible body cavities.

      An IUD does not become part of a person's body despite being inserted into the uterus, which is part of the body cavity consisting of the fallopian tubes, uterus, and vagina.

      One of my college teachers used to enjoy pointing out that the human body is topologically the same as a doughnut, perhaps due to his adolescent obsession with the anus, but true nevertheless.

      The skin is the boundary layer of our body (hair and fingernails being interesting appendages). When the egg erupts it is a sort of bleeding into a body cavity and is no longer within the topology of the body.

      My distinction is hardly arbitrary when you consider the topology of the human body.

      "but for some reason, blood ceases to be part of the body when it stops flowing through blood vessels and exits the body"
      The human body is contiguous. When blood falls in the dirt it has left the body and been absorbed by the Earth.

      "Why the inconsistent standard,"
      The standard is the same. When a cell passes from inside the skin to outside the skin that cell has left the body.

      " and why shouldn't a woman have control over what is in her own body?"
      In general, we do control not only what is inside our bodies but also what is inside our body cavities, attached to our bodies, and what is in our personal space.

      But a living human being is different because that human being retains rights of his or her own, even though that person might be in your personal space, contacting your body, or inside one of your body cavities.

      "You said you think brain function is what determines personhood, but you have not said what particular kind or level of brain function, nor how to determine whether it is present in the fetus."
      Actually I have said I would use the same standards as are presently used at the end of life, but yes, there is a technical difficulty in monitoring brain function in utero.

      "But you think this is reasonable, while objectively determined viability is irrational."
      Viability is more easily determined, but that does not mean it is a rational standard for when each of us achieved our humanity, or as you might say, personhood. Just because we can easily measure a property does not mean it is the property we wish to measure.

      Delete
    6. "You state that a legal definition for viability exists that I have never seen, and I asked you for a reference, and you haven't provided it. So why should I believe that your reductio has any validity at all?"
      These subjects are widely published because they are important matters of law, religion, business, and personal morality. Yet you think this is all undefined. Apparently you have not researched the topic, which is fine, but a bit surprising.

      Here is a list of present state laws:
      https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/state-policies-later-abortions

      Still, that does not tell us what viability is. Here is one answer:
      "As the word is used in United States constitutional law since Roe v. Wade, viability is the potential of the fetus to survive outside the uterus after birth, natural or induced, when supported by up-to-date medicine"
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_viability

      The SCOTUS said:
      " in Roe v. Wade (1973) that viability (i.e., the "interim point at which the fetus becomes ... potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid"[6])

      So, clearly, when technology advances to be able to connect the umbilical cord to a machine that pumps blood, oxygenates the blood, adds nutrients to the blood, and removes waste from the blood then viability will be pushed back to about 6 weeks because a 6 week old will be able to "live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid"

      How do you like the viability standard in that case? Think about it carefully, I have for many years.

      Delete
  13. "While it is epistemically possible that future technology will make fetuses viable at week 0, it doesn't then follow that fetuses are always viable at week 0"
    Indeed, for each individual fetus, but under the law there is a presumption of viability at time t such that at least one human being survived a live birth at time t. That presumption may, under the law, be medically challenged and an abortion may be performed under the viability standard beyond time t on a case by case basis.

    "A person advocating the viability standard can take the view that abortion at week 0 is permissible in 2016 but might be impermissible in 2030"
    Hence the fallaciousness of the viability standard demonstrated. Did the intrinsic properties of human beings, their worth, their right to life, change in those 14 years?

    "The viability standard obviously would change when abortion is permissible as technology advances, but that isn't really a reductio of the viability standard."
    For individuals who have a presupposition that human life does not begin at conception then reduction of viability to 0 is an effective reductio of the viability standard as a test of human life or personhood.

    "A reductio would challenge the truth of the standard but your example just shows that by the standard abortion could become impermissible in every case. "
    Which is a challenge to the truth of the assertion that viability defines personhood. Reduction of viability to conception would require a single cell to be a person.

    Those who think a single cell is a person already think the viability standard is wrong.

    Those who agree with the viability standard do not think a single cell is a person, yet reduction of viability to conception would give that single cell the protection of personhood.

    Reduction demonstrates the incompatibility of considering a single cell or a group of undifferentiated cells to be an individual human being, and the viability standard.



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Hence the fallaciousness of the viability standard demonstrated. Did the intrinsic properties of human beings, their worth, their right to life, change in those 14 years?"

      We need a definition for what "Intrinsic worth" refers to. To pin point a fallacy, you need to show that the viability standard implies either contradictory things about intrinsic worth or that some fact about intrinsic worth is logically incompatible with the viability standard. But in order to do these things we need to know what "intrinsic worth" refers to.

      I'm not sure how you're using the term "Personhood". I define a person as the following:

      Personhood definition - [A person is any being with the capacity to reason, is self aware, and can desire to exist into the future]

      It seems you're reductio says this:

      1. If the viability standard is true, then a single cell is not a person.
      2. If the viability standard is true, then any living thing that can possibly live outside the womb is a person.
      3. A single cell is a living thing.
      4. A single cell can possibly live outside the womb.
      5. If the viability standard is true, then a single cell is a person.

      1 and 5 are logically incompatible so a contradiction arises. However, as I point out, the viability standard doesn't imply a single cell is not a person. Rather, the viability standard implies something weaker, that at a time t, if a living thing is not viable at t then it is not a person at t. Given that, the viability standard does not imply a contradiction. Perhaps more accurately you mean to say the viability standard as held by some advocates implies a conclusion that they are motivated to reject, i.e. that a single cell can possibly be a person. If personhood is being defined as "viable outside the womb" then there's no issue. But it isn't clear what personhood means in your statements. Pro-life people typically define personhood simply to be humanhood, but other people take more philosophically traditional views.

      Delete
  14. "But it isn't clear what personhood means in your statements"
    I appreciate the detail you have expressed.

    "Personhood" is not a term I typically employ. If that means something specific to you, fine.

    "Perhaps more accurately you mean to say the viability standard as held by some advocates implies a conclusion that they are motivated to reject, i.e. that a single cell can possibly be a person."
    It's not that I mean to say that, I did say that.

    If a single cell is a human being with an inherent right to life then the viability standard is wrong.

    If a single cell is not a human being with an inherent right to life then one might say that viability marks the point at which one achieves that right, but that leads to the contradiction between 1. and 5. in your logic.

    If the thing that imparts the right to life is viability itself then a single cell may or may not have a right to life depending upon the current state of incubator technology. Does any actual person believe that? None that I have ever heard discuss these issues. Every person I have ever heard has always said that either a fertilized egg is a human being in its own right with its own right to life, or it is not, irrespective of any technological means to incubate it to term.

    "Personhood definition - [A person is any being with the capacity to reason, is self aware, and can desire to exist into the future]"
    This is a deeply disturbing definition. So, if one lacks, at some particular time, a capacity to reason one is no longer a person? Lacking self awareness eliminates personhood? Lacking a desire to exist eliminates personhood?

    You have just declared open season on the sleeping, the unconscious, post viability human beings in utero, the comatose, the drugged, and anybody who lacks any one of those qualities.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "If a single cell is a human being with an inherent right to life then the viability standard is wrong."

      Your conditional is false since the antecedent can be true while the consequent is false. The viability standard can be accommodated to accept that at a time t it would be impermissible to terminate the life of a single cell if at t the living cell is alive and at t the single cell is viable outside the womb. Perhaps no person you have encountered accepts what the viability standard can include, but it would still be the case that "Only living things that are viable outside the womb have a right to life" does not form the contradiction you desire. It would be more accurate for you to say that the advocates of the viability standard that you know of advocate a position which implies a contradiction. A viability standard modeled in a predicate logic or modal logic would not have the same issues as the simplistic version you are attacking.

      With respect to personhood, there isn't much I can do other than suggest you read relevant philosophical material. Personhood arguments have been discussed in ethics/bioethics literature since at least the 1970s, and each of the things you mentioned have been discussed. Personhood advocates include Mary Anne Warren, Peter Singer, and Michael Tooley.

      Michael Tooley has a relevant book and an easily accessible relevant article:

      https://www.amazon.com/Abortion-Infanticide-Michael-Tooley/dp/0198249160

      http://eclass.uoa.gr/modules/document/file.php/PPP504/Michael%20Tooley,%20Abortion%20and%20infanticide.pdf

      Philosopher David Boonin also has a relevant book (Available online):

      https://www.amazon.ca/Defense-Abortion-David-Boonin/dp/0521520355

      Since you probably aren't familiar with the philosophical material, you should know it is vast and often complex. The material doesn't require competency in formal logic, but it does a great deal of attention paid since it attempts to challenge everything relevant to the abortion debate. i.e. ontology of rights, what a right to life is, what can have a right to life, etc.

      Delete
    2. "the viability standard is wrong"
      We have a viability standard active in the USA today. If a single cell is a human being with an inherent right to life then the existing viability standard is wrong because it allows the elective killing not only of a single cell, but a fetus up to 19 weeks.

      My suggestion to you is that you concentrate more on real people as they really live in our actual society and how real law is applied to real situations encountered by real people. That will help you realize that dry recitations of formal logic are likely to miss the meaning of what is being expressed.

      "Since you probably aren't familiar with the philosophical material, you should know it is vast and often complex. The material doesn't require competency in formal logic, but it does a great deal of attention paid since it attempts to challenge everything relevant to the abortion debate. i.e. ontology of rights, what a right to life is, what can have a right to life, etc. "
      That's nice. Telling me "go read a book" is particularly weak argumentation.

      If some authors think they have fashioned a philosophy on rational grounds that permits infanticide and fits the definition you laid out above they will find themselves behind bars if they choose to act upon their philosophy, and they may engage in a philosophical diatribe on the gurney while contemplating the poison needle from a personal experience perspective.

      Your definition is why I do not advocate the word personhood, since it is so easily associated which the debauchery of the definition you state above.

      Delete
    3. "That's nice. Telling me "go read a book" is particularly weak argumentation."

      It's not argumentation at all. Perhaps you're unfamiliar with what an argument is, but a suggestion is not an argument.

      The following are not examples of arguments:

      1. What is the circumference of the earth?
      2. All tigers are mammals.
      3. You ought to call your mother.

      One of those is a question, one is a descriptive fact and the last one is a normative statement. None are arguments.

      Now I will point out that I never commanded that you read a book. Rather, I SUGGESTED you read a book if you want to see arguments about abortion which discuss the philosophical concept of personhood. It is no more inappropriate for me to suggest you read a book to get an in depth analysis on the topic than it is for me to suggest you read a book on formal logic to get an indepth analysis of the workings of first order logic. When a subject has more to cover than can be done with justice in a blog post, it makes sense to suggest a book if a book long analysis of the topic is reasonably necessary to do justice to the topic.

      I have little interest in whether philosophers would find themselves in jail if they acted upon what they believe is ethically the case. The same authors would find themselves acting contrary to US law a decade ago had they entered a same-sex marriage, but that is not a reductio of same-sex marriage or the arguments of the philosophers.

      Delete
  15. "We need a definition for what "Intrinsic worth" refers to."
    We hold these truths to be self evident.

    Life. We each have a self evident an inalienable right to it. That is an axiom that we the people, the vast majority, accept. If you do not accept that axiom, fine, you are invited to relocate outside of these United States.

    "To pin point a fallacy, you need to show that the viability standard implies either contradictory things about intrinsic worth "
    It does. Unlike your rather disturbing definition of personhood most people do not advocate for the termination of the unconscious. In fact, people feel so strongly about the rights of the unconscious that sex with an unconscious person is considered to be inherently rape.

    And no, we do not need to strictly define intrinsic worth to make decisions about it. That would be nice, but life does not offer us total knowledge, yet we must make decisions.

    Let intrinsic worth be X. What is delta X from week 18 to week 19 or a normal pregnancy? What is delta X from week 19 to week 20? From week 20 to week 21?

    Remember, this is not worth to your, or me, or the mother, or the father, or society as a whole. This in intrinsic worth. The worth that individual has to herself or himself.

    I think this bears repeating. Herself or himself. What is her worth to herself? What is his worth to himself? These are inalienable rights to the individual in question, not anybody else.

    What is the delta of that individual with respect to herself or himself growing from week 18, to 19, to 20, to 21?

    Tell me if you can, the substantial change of the nature of the individual with respect to herself or himself in that time period in a normal pregnancy.

    Between week 19 and week 21 has the individual changed consiousness in some fundamental manner? Have new organs appeared? Has the brain altered its fundamental structure? No. There has been no substantial change in the individual from the perspective of that individual.

    Yet, at 19 weeks that individual can be killed in utero, murdered I would say. The heart stopped with poison. The skull cut with surgical scissors. The brain evacuated. The body dismembered.

    At 21 weeks that individual enjoys the protection of the law. Such a killing now becomes a felony. The mother is required to carry that individual to term upon pain of criminal prosecution.

    Why? What has changed for that individual from the perspective of that individual? Does the 21 week old breath an amniotic fluid sigh of relief? Does he or she feel as though having dodged a bullet, or tin this case a poison needle? "Hah, they can't kill me now! I made it to 20! Too late! Now you have to keep me alive until I can get out of this damn little water bag!"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Life. We each have a self evident an inalienable right to it. That is an axiom that we the people, the vast majority, accept. If you do not accept that axiom, fine, you are invited to relocate outside of these United States."

      I live in Canada, so this isn't an issue. So I gather that your definition is this:

      Intrinsic worth - [To say S has intrinsic worth is to say S having worth is self evident to most people]

      "And no, we do not need to strictly define intrinsic worth to make decisions about it. That would be nice, but life does not offer us total knowledge, yet we must make decisions."

      No, you need to define intrinsic worth to offer a reductio of the viability standard. A reductio works like this:

      Method 1

      1. Assume P
      2. Derive Q from P
      3. Derive ~Q from P
      4. Contradiction

      Method 2

      1. Assume P
      2. Derive Q from P
      3. derive ~Q from some known statement.
      4. Contradiction.

      In method 1, you show that a contradiction arises from the assumption of P because P implies two exclusive propositions. In method 2, you show that a contradiction arises from the assumption of P because P implies some Q but the negation of that Q happens to be true.

      With either method, you need precise definitions of terms to ensure the reductio goes through.

      I can't really argue much here because I need to know precisely why you think humans have a right to life. It doesn't help that you have perhaps unintentionally misrepresented me. An unconscious being is not the same as a being which is not self aware. If S is unconsciousness then S is a self aware being and S is either sleeping, or in some other state which is limiting their capacities. Implying I might advocate rape might be a nice way to simply ignore my definition, but it is not an implication or implicature of my definition. I assume though that you're just not familiar with philosophical literature on the subject.

      Delete
    2. I'll tell you what, StarDusty, give me precisely whatever propositions you want to debate, and give me the arguments you wish to use for them. I will try to make your arguments as clear as I can, and if I think there are issues with the argument(s) then I will address them. Nothing should be mentioned other than statements directly relevant to the truth of any proposition related to the argument(s).

      Delete
    3. "With either method, you need precise definitions of terms"
      No, I only need sufficient definitions, not precise definitions.

      That is one of the aspects of living in the real world most of us or at least many of us come to terms with. We don't typicality get to plug all our decisions into neat equations and have the answers pop out algorithmically with precision.

      Sometimes we only get enough information to be able to make a decision based on crossing a threshold of similarity, as opposed to a closed form solution of precise equality.

      "I can't really argue much here because I need to know precisely why you think humans have a right to life."
      No you don't. The right to life is a social axiom. Perhaps Canadians do not share the acceptance of this axiom and you are among those who do not. If that is the case then perhaps it is for the best that you do not live in the USA.

      You are Canadian, and I am not familiar with the laws of Canada. Here in the USA these words are not themselves a controlling legal authority, but they express a nearly universally accepted set of axioms that form a common American morality.

      "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, —"

      ""Personhood definition - [A person is any being with the capacity to reason, is self aware, and can desire to exist into the future]""

      " If S is unconsciousness then S is a self aware being and S is either sleeping, or in some other state which is limiting their capacities."
      That's not what your definition states. The definition does not state the general condition of being a self aware being yet not self aware at any particular moment.

      The definition simply states "is self aware". If you mean "is potentially self aware" or "was at some time self aware" or "might reasonably be judged to possibly become self aware" then the definition should have said that.

      "implying I might advocate rape might be a nice way to simply ignore my definition"
      Quite the contrary, I am pointing out a logical extension of the definition as stated that I am virtually certain you do not advocate, thus illuminating a deficiency in the definition.

      "but it is not an implication or implicature of my definition"
      Again there may be a difference in law between Canada the the USA. Here in the states having sex with an unconscious person is rape by statute. An unconscious person, by your definition, is not self aware, and therefore lacks personhood, and therefore does not enjoy the protection against being raped. One does rape a non person, one merely uses that object for masturbation.

      "I assume though that you're just not familiar with philosophical literature on the subject."
      I assume you are so steeped in dry academic analysis that you have lost a degree of human perspective.

      Delete
    4. "That's not what your definition states. The definition does not state the general condition of being a self aware being yet not self aware at any particular moment."

      My definition also does not define "self aware", or "capacity to reason". But that isn't an issue. The way I would define each term, we would find "S is unconscious" is only a property that particular organisms can have. My universe of discourse would then be narrow in scope.

      An unconscious person by my definition is a self aware person. That is, if S is unconscious then S is self aware. I could get into specific problems for defining when a being has a property such as "self aware" but I don't think it's important. By my definitions, I am self aware in my sleep, or if I'm under anesthetic, or if I am in a reversible coma.

      Will you admit that you are completely ignorant of the vast philosophical material on abortion, infanticide, and relevant issues such as personhood?

      Delete
  16. ***That is a matter of present law and medical practice at the end of life. I am willing to defer to those legal and medical standards for brain function applied to the beginning of life.***
    "- You don't know the difference between brain function and brain activity. They keep people on life support as long as there is some detectable activity in the brain. That says nothing at all about cognitive function, or whether the person is a total vegetable."
    Cognitive function is not the only sort of brain function there is. The brain is a massively parallel and multi sectioned signal processing system.

    And unconscious person has a functioning brain even if the cognitive function is not active at that moment.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're talking about the animal brain that controls metabolic function. That's not what makes us human. But even that can be failing, and they still keep the body alive on life support. But it's not a person they're keeping alive. It's just a body.

      Delete
    2. " But it's not a person they're keeping alive. It's just a body"
      Which is brain death and time to pull the plug.

      A human being dies when the brain dies. The heart may die but we can replace that with a pump. The other organs can die but they can also be replaced by machines. When the brain dies the human being has died. I will die when my brain dies. We all must face that inevitable reality.

      Thus, I began to live when my brain began to live. The thing that made me a living human being is that my brain began to live, just as the thing that makes me no longer a living human being will be that my brain no longer lives.

      Physicians, health care workers, members of the clergy, and laypeople throughout the world have accepted fully that a person is dead when his or her brain is dead. Although the widespread use of mechanical ventilators and other advanced critical care services have transformed the course of terminal neurologic disorders. Vital functions can now be maintained artificially for a long period of time after the brain has ceased to function.
      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2772257/



      Delete
    3. Cognitive function is what makes a person a person. The brain can still be active, with metabolic function continuing, long after the person has ceased to be a person.

      Delete
    4. Following my leanings on personal identity, I would agree that a person's existence is not in a one to one correspondence with the existence of their brain. That is, a person's brain can be alive while the person is dead, but not vice versa. So, if I suffered a particular degree of damage to my cognitive abilities and memories then I would cease to exist while my brain continues on. I'm a physicalist, so I identify my entire existence to a material existence, but I do not identify my existence solely in the existence of my living body.

      Since you and Stardusty are having an implicit dispute about personal identity, I doubt there is much point in arguing it. There is so much to cover such as whether psychological continuity is necessary, how we persist through time, etc.

      http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/identity-personal/
      http://www.iep.utm.edu/person-i/


      Delete
    5. I don't think it's much of a dispute. The main issue is that he won't define his terms. It's difficult to be sure exactly what he means by many of his statements.

      Delete
    6. "im-skepticalOctober 9, 2016 at 3:32 PM

      I don't think it's much of a dispute. The main issue is that he won't define his terms. It's difficult to be sure exactly what he means by many of his statements."
      Hmmm...well, I am not sure which terms I have used in a vague or poorly defined way, but sometimes that is the very reason one speaks incompletely, not even being aware of ones own gaps.

      I am not a neuroscientist or a medical doctor but I think it is reasonable to apply standards of functionality used to determine the end of life to the determination of the beginning of life.
      So here are a couple of links on what is and is not a person who has legally died
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_death
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persistent_vegetative_state

      Hopefully those articles can define some terms better than I have. But very briefly, the bar is set very low, in other words, relatively little brain activity and relatively low level brain activity is generally sufficient to determine that a human being is legally alive and cannot be legally terminated.

      Delete
    7. All you are talking about is the difference between a completely dead body and someone who can still breathe, but is otherwise a vegetable. And you still haven't told us when a person becomes a person.

      Delete
    8. im-skepticalOctober 12, 2016 at 7:25 AM

      "All you are talking about is the difference between a completely dead body and someone who can still breathe, but is otherwise a vegetable."
      That may seem trivial to you, but it is a matter of very serious consideration in medicine, personal ethics, and the law, rising through the federal courts while becoming a presidential and gubernatorial issue.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terri_Schiavo_case

      " And you still haven't told us when a person becomes a person."
      I think I have, several times, although I avoid the word "personhood" because it is so mixed up with a definition of what a person is that I reject, such as this:
      ""Personhood definition - [A person is any being with the capacity to reason, is self aware, and can desire to exist into the future]""

      By law in many states a person, for the purpose of protecting his or her life, is defined as a viable fetus in utero. There are also other legal definitions of a person. There are zero states that fail to recognize the personhood of a new born baby human being, as would be the case if the above quoted definition were legally recognized.

      There may be some tiny number of philosophers who are so enamored of their own imagined superior rationality that they have concocted a bizarre rationale for making infanticide morally justifiable, but such thinking is a non-starter in law and for virtually everybody else, being nothing more than the constricted thinking of a tiny sect of pseudo-intellectuals who have gone off on an isolated tangent in denial of their full intelligences.

      I have told you several times, a human being achieves the unalienable right to life upon gaining the same level of brain activity at which he or she will eventually, upon losing that brain activity, lose that right.

      Delete
  17. "No, I only need sufficient definitions, not precise definitions."

    I'm not sure what a "Sufficient" definition is. I assume you mean a definition that is precise enough that you will be able to communicate your point to other people. Even then, you would need to carefully define your terms to the "sufficient" standard in order to make a reductio go through.

    Again, I'll offer to look over any arguments you wish to advance for some proposition(s). I would advise the following:

    First, follow Grice's conversational maxims in defining terms, listing propositions, etc.

    Second, start with definitions for all relevant terms to your argument that might be controversial.

    Third, outline the proposition(s) you wish to advocate.

    Fourth, outline the argument(s) you wish to advance for your advocated proposition(s).

    I can try to make each term, proposition and argument as clear as possible, and then assess the validity (bare minimum) of the argument(s). Since it is not clear whether you want to debate ethics vs legality, clarifying which proposition(s) you're advocating is definitely necessary for conversation. For example, perhaps you're implicitly arguing that natural law legal theory is true, and what is moral is what is believed by most people, and most people think the viability standard is wrong so the viability standard cannot be a law. Clarification on these issues is ideal in understanding what you're arguing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "First...Second...Third...Fourth,"
      I'm sorry you find ordinary conversational English so difficult that you must have every argument broken down and expanded into a format suitable for peer review publication.

      I reject the viability standard because I have never heard a sound argument for it, and I think our right to life is based on brain function which does not change substantially from 19 weeks to 21 weeks (20 weeks being the point at which SCOTUS precedent in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services affirmed the constitutionality of the presumption of viability).

      But, perhaps you have what you consider to be a sound argument for the viability standard.

      Perhaps you can apply maxims to form structured prose in defense of the viability standard, or perhaps you can write a formal syllogism, ponens, tollens, or argument form of your choice to support the viability standard.

      Else it will remain apparent to me that there is no sound rational argument for the viability standard and it has been adopted merely as a practical political compromise in law.

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    3. Ordinary English is not difficult. However, ordinary English is not efficient. Informal logic classes often teach how to pinpoint exactly what sentences in a paragraph are being used as conclusions, inferences or premises. The skills developed in such classes are instrumental in assisting people in understanding a person's argument when they are presented in very informal way. However, the skills would be less useful if arguments were presented in a more formal format. i.e. An argument is presented similarly to natural deduction methods where every sentences is listed as either a premise, assumption, conclusion and each inference is listed. The more formal style is more efficient at making arguments clear. Ordinary English is perfectly OK in some scenarios, but it is not always instrumentally rational to use ordinary English when other means are available. For example, to a logician it would be instrumentally rational to translate an argument from English into a symbolic language to assess the validity of the argument.

      I don't believe in the viability standard, either on legal terms or moral terms, and I have said this to you already.

      Since you seem reluctant to have a form of conversation which is intentionally done to avoid confusion by means of ambiguity or vagueness then I suppose there isn't any good reason for our conversation to continue. Just by implying I find ordinary conversational English difficult you act abusive and consequently behave as an unethical speaker by Grice's maxims. My advice to you, follow Grice's conversational maxims, learn the basics of classical logic so you can construct your arguments, find a format which you believe makes your position as clear as possible for any potential opposition.

      Delete
    4. "Just by implying I find ordinary conversational English difficult you act abusive and consequently behave as an unethical speaker by Grice's maxims."
      Grice != god.

      But, at least you do not believe in the viability standard. You seem to believe in a personhood standard that would have as its consequence, if implemented into law, the establishment of a ghoulish social order of infanticide and termination of certain classes of afflicted people. Perhaps you could form a formal argument to support that rather horrifying prospect.

      One bit of caution, however, the definition cited previously suffers from at least 1 glaring flaw, the failure to distinguish between the plain present tense meaning of "is" as opposed to some more generalized sense of "was" or "could be".

      As for speaking unethically that is hardly the case. My reasoning has been clear, yet you seem to require formalization of it. Matters of law are generally not argued formally. The SCOTUS does not write rulings in the form of a formal logical arguments.

      In logic consequentialism might be considered fallacious argumentation, but in law consequences matter.

      On the other hand, perhaps you have a logical argument for infanticide that is so compelling it will cause the rest of us to begin condoning the elective killing of babies. If so, by all means, do present it in the form of your choice.

      Delete
    5. perhaps you have a logical argument for infanticide that is so compelling it will cause the rest of us to begin condoning the elective killing of babies.

      Straw man. Nobody argues in favor of infanticide. Your problem is that you seem to think that any living brain cell constitutes a person. Not everybody agrees with that. So the real issue here that you have completely failed to engage with any level of intellectual honesty is the question of what realistically makes a person a person, and how we would recognize whether it is the case.

      Delete
    6. "im-skepticalOctober 19, 2016 at 10:27 AM
      "Straw man. Nobody argues in favor of infanticide."
      Quite the contrary, that is just what the personhood definition proposed by Ryan argues for, by his own statements summarized in date order below.
      “im-skepticalOctober 1, 2016 at 1:05 PM
      Ryan is right. When you say "we are each individual human beings", you are really talking about personhood.”
      “Ryan MOctober 2, 2016 at 4:55 AM
      I don't know why he chooses viability. But yes, I think arguments which focus on personhood do imply that infanticide is permissible.”
      Personhood definition - [A person is any being with the capacity to reason, is self aware, and can desire to exist into the future]”
      “Ryan MOctober 9, 2016 at 2:49 PM
      Will you admit that you are completely ignorant of the vast philosophical material on abortion, infanticide, and relevant issues such as personhood?”
      ***
      "Your problem is that you seem to think that any living brain cell constitutes a person"
      Now it is you issuing a staw man. The present consensus of law defines the end of life as brain function or brain activity at or below a persistent vegetative state. My proposal all along is to apply that same standard of brain activity to the bringing of life.

      "you have completely failed to engage with any level of intellectual honesty is the question of what realistically makes a person a person, and how we would recognize whether it is the case."
      Then the whole of our legal system is just as intellectually dishonest.

      Have you considered that you simply have not thought about my position accurately? Given your strawman representation of it I find that to be the only reasonable assessment.



      Delete
    7. First, I don't agree that a discussion focused on personhood implies that infanticide is permissible. Infanticide is a form of homicide. Homicide is the killing of a PERSON. And none of us argues that killing a person (infant or otherwise) is permissible. The relevant question is: What is a person? If a fetus is not a person, then it's not infanticide.

      My proposal all along is to apply that same standard of brain activity to the bringing of life.
      - No. As I read it, you spoke of any level of brain function as being the standard. Now you are backing off that standard, because even a vegetable can have some brain function. So I ask you again, what is the level that constitutes personhood, and how can it be determined objectively?

      Then the whole of our legal system is just as intellectually dishonest.
      - Actually, it uses the only standard I know of that is objectively determinable. Your "standard" isn't even clearly defined, much less determined or measured in some objective manner.

      Have you considered that you simply have not thought about my position accurately? Given your strawman representation of it I find that to be the only reasonable assessment.
      - I have considered that I still don't know what your position is, because you refuse to define it clearly. This is what I've been trying to tell you.

      Delete
    8. "im-skepticalOctober 23, 2016 at 8:23 PM
      "First, I don't agree that a discussion focused on personhood implies that infanticide is permissible. Infanticide is a form of homicide"
      I did not say you were arguing for infanticide. You said nobody is. In that you are incorrect. Ryan is arguing for infanticide as a rational conclusion of the personhood definition he provided, although he may have consequentialist or other reasons to argue against its legal realization.

      "- No. As I read it, you spoke of any level of brain function as being the standard. Now you are backing off that standard,"
      You read inaccurately. My position remains unchanged.

      " So I ask you again, what is the level that constitutes personhood, and how can it be determined objectively? "
      Asked and answered several times. But, again, we presently have such standards in place as a matter of law with respect to the end of life. My proposal is to apply those existing standards to the beginning of life.

      "- Actually, it uses the only standard I know of that is objectively determinable."
      For what? Level of brain activity that constitutes the threshold of end of life, or developmental stage at which there is a presumption of viability? Those are 2 very different things that are presently a part of US state and federal law.

      "- I have considered that I still don't know what your position is, because you refuse to define it clearly. This is what I've been trying to tell you."
      I have defined my position clearly again and again. I have provided links, and you can look up for yourself how death is determined based on level of brain activity or brain function.

      How can I be more clear? I have said again and again that I think life begins at the same level of brain activity that life ends at. A person, for the legal purpose of protecting that human life, is a human being with brain activity level associated at or above a persistent vegetative state. For the end of life that standard is already long established law.

      I think the time has come to focus on research into how we can apply that same standard of brain activity level to the beginning of life and base our laws regarding in utero pre-born human beings, or persons if you prefer, on this same standard of brain activity.





      Delete
    9. I did not say you were arguing for infanticide. You said nobody is. In that you are incorrect. Ryan is arguing for infanticide as a rational conclusion of the personhood definition he provided
      - Are you kidding me? Nobody is arguing in favor of infanticide. But you have completely ignored the critical question that I raised repeatedly. What is your standard for determining what constitutes a person worthy of having life protected by law?

      You read inaccurately. My position remains unchanged.
      - Why do you insist on keeping us guessing? Why don't you say what that position is?

      Asked and answered several times. But, again, we presently have such standards in place as a matter of law with respect to the end of life. My proposal is to apply those existing standards to the beginning of life.
      - All I heard you say (I think) is that it should be some level of function greater than what a dying person in a vegetative state has. So what level of function is it?

      Level of brain activity that constitutes the threshold of end of life ...
      - What is that? If the brain is completely dead (zero brain activity) then a body is medically dead. However, it is permissible to pull the plug when a person is considered to be unrecoverable. That means there is no detectable cognitive function, even though the brain may still sustain some metabolic function. So it must be some level of function greater than that that you are talking about. Why don't you stop playing this stupid little game and just state clearly what your position is?

      How can I be more clear? I have said again and again that I think life begins at the same level of brain activity that life ends at. A person, for the legal purpose of protecting that human life, is a human being with brain activity level associated at or above a persistent vegetative state.
      - Do you see the contradiction in your stance? At or above vegetative state? But AT the vegetative state it is LEGAL to terminate the life function, because a vegetable is not a person. So what is the level where personhood ceases?

      Honestly, this is tiresome. I don't think you know what your position is.

      Delete
  18. " I am self aware in my sleep, or if I'm under anesthetic, or if I am in a reversible coma."
    You were self aware, you might become self aware if you come out of your sleep or coma, but you are not at present self aware.

    You seem to have some difficulties distinguishing between your present state, your past state, and your potential future state.

    You also seem to be using "I am" in a very generalized time dissociated manner. That has some conversational utility in many contexts, but it breaks down in usefulness in the context of abortion. When considering whether or not to terminate a pregnancy time is of the essence.

    "Will you admit that you are completely ignorant of the vast philosophical material on abortion, infanticide, and relevant issues such as personhood?"
    That's good for a chuckle. In a word, no. But you seem to be implying that you somehow have some vast literature on your side. The truth is that there is no consensus on personhood legally or philosophically.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  19. Hey guys, it was very interesting to read all of that exchange, even though it got unnecessarily sour, but yet funny because of some clever passive-aggressive insults.

    That being said, it seems that nobody goes into any specifics real-life scenario, so I am at lost with what the ultimate conclusions of each point of view are. For instance, I mentioned how ~99% of abortions are performed before that 20-week mark. Do we all agree that this is both moral and, rightly so, legal. Any woman can terminate her pregnancy under any circumstances.

    The debate taking place here is more complex; it's more about what it means to be human, conscious, a person, etc... It starts to overlap when tougher decisions need to be made. A 22-week pregnancy is putting the mother's life at risk, should we abort the pregnancy? What about 24, 30...? But after that, pre-mature birth is likely to yield to a normal life for the newborn, under proper medical care. So I don't know what I would do for the tough choices, I really don't, and I am not sure what anyone here would do?

    In other news, I was catching up on reading Atheism Analyzed as it's always fascinating to read Stan's random thought of the day. Then I ran into this:

    Stan said:
    "Both IMS and Hugo refuse to address their logic fallacies. It's as simple as that. IMS is a pretender. He pretends to understand science, but obviously has no education in it. Then he criticizes those who have actually had such courses at the graduate level, as if he is the final word. Hugo is the same way, but courteous. By constant refusal to acknowledge obvious logic fallacies, he takes an untenable position permanently, and locks the conversation into an infinite loop - circular and dependent upon such "principles" as Appeal to Authority, rather than actual analysis. Infinite loops (circularity founded in opinion) degrade rapidly into whoever speaks last, gets the 'win'. And that's where it goes, when fallacies are considered acceptable.

    A conversation based on the "win" is anti-rational. And anti-rational, anti-logic (Aristotelian) is the entire basis that those folks base their worldviews upon.

    I saw that one of the IMS fans claims that many "logics" apply - apparently to be switched in, whenever needed to defeat rational Aristotelian logic. That is a firm indicator of the necessary defense of a narrative over any value of discrimination toward truth.
    "

    He just cannot let go. He bans people yet cannot help but comment when others bring the same topic, or direct references to the people that were banned. He pretends that it's about issues but cannot help but make it personal. He is directly attacking 2 people for their critical thinking skills, instead of issues. Yet, it's impossible to make Stan stick to 1 point and 1 point alone. That's why he's the one who cannot see his logic fallacies. He does not have the required attention's span.

    Did you ever see the YouTube videos of him on a radio show? I need to find that again...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's interesting. I pointed out some of Stan's logical fallacies, and instead of addressing them, he became abusive. I pointed out his lack of scientific understanding, and he banned me.

      Our approach to discussing issues with people like Stan is slightly different, but the result seems to be pretty much the same. I tried being polite and deferential, and it was met with rudeness and ad hominem. My conclusion is that it's not the person they fear so much as the message.

      Delete
    2. Hugo,
      "yet funny because of some clever passive-aggressive insults."
      I considered saying "STFU you ignorant ass" but upon further reflection I could not find a way to turn that into both a valid and sound argument, so I abandoned that line of argumentation.

      "That being said, it seems that nobody goes into any specifics real-life scenario"
      Actually, I have, for example in reference to 19 weeks versus 21 weeks, but I know it is not realistic to think you are going to study every word in detail.

      " ~99% of abortions are performed before that 20-week mark. Do we all agree that this is both moral and, rightly so, legal"
      No.
      In my view the brain develops sufficiently to warrant protection of the individual far before week 20.

      "A 22-week pregnancy is putting the mother's life at risk, should we abort the pregnancy?"
      According to the SCOTUS that cannot be banned. Resitrictions on post viability abortions must include such an exception. I agree based on the right to self defense of the mother.

      However, I would add that a live delivery attempt should be required if it is medically sound for the mother.

      " That's why he's the one who cannot see his logic fallacies."
      Stan is just another thin skinned owner/moderator who knows a very great deal less than he imagines himself to and seethes with vitriol when you go directly at him. This effect becomes especially acute among the creationists who invariably lack critical thinking skills as we know them.

      From my first post to my last post there I always thought "gee, I wonder if this is the one that will set him off to ban me on some bullshit excuse"



      Delete
  20. Oh wow, it's now showing up only on the 5th page if you Google his name, completely insignificant videos obviously:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9PjAdUADuo
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-1JcXaNif8

    Which reminds me that he has still not made his family blog private. He freaked out about some troll who tried to expose his address and mine apparently. He is so self-absorbed that I would not be surprised if he purposely kept it like that just so that he does not do something I suggested....

    I have watched these a long time no ago; no time to do that again. But I recall that the first one is very telling about why he because a Theist, only after he retired. Basically, he went through his entire working adult life as someone who does not bother thinking about big questions using reason and logic. He calls that being an Atheist; because of rebellious youth against his childhood Christianity. No wonder he thinks it's stupid to be an Atheist, he was never interested about the topic for most of his life, when our ideas about the world and our capacity to process information adapts.

    In the second video, regarding evolution, the most relevant part is when he discusses the notion that dogs always give birth to dogs, and how mutations don't cause change. It's amazing how he cannot get that 1 thing right, for years and years now. He must know, somehow, that this is what his beliefs depend on. Living things cannot mutate more than within some arbitrary micro-evolution framework; dogs are always dogs. Because, otherwise, divergence and new features can appear, leading to speciation, which contradicts the initial assumption that living things do not change that way. He constantly assumes his conclusion to explain everything else.

    I wrote about that, and a lot of other things, on a more personal level. (See here for instance.) I genuinely try to be nice about these things, but Stan cannot help to be a bit of an ass. Well, it's more than just that now honestly, he is a complete asshole, and a wrong one. Let's be frank. In recent months, he has ridiculed rape victims, said he would get a gun if Muslims were in his home, that the political Left is where most, if not all, the violence comes from in this election season, ... but also factual strange things such as Life is a mysterious thing that cannot be described in physical term, and starts at the time of conception, making anyone who gets an abortion a murderer; that Evolution is completely false, irrational, and supported by no evidence whatsoever, no speciation, no macro-evolution, no novel mutations that survive reproduction, and all family trees between animals are fictional so-stories since there is no common descent; that Climate Change is a hoax by lefty politicians and scientists, nobody knows what will happen, things change completely randomly and we cannot possibly do anything about it as we cannot possibly have caused anything as humans.

    ReplyDelete
  21. I continued to watch the second one longer, he makes so many funny comments. And he even uses the exact 'dog' example I mentioned!! I feel more sad for him now than anything else, honestly. The ignorance... so strong. He ends up saying it's an emotional reaction, 'they want' to believe in Evolution. But the crucial mistake, at around the 28th minute mark and after:
    " You can't take just straight variation within a population and expect to have something out of that population happen. Set theory tells you that, that's not true. If you have a set of purple marbles, you'll never have an orange come out of that.
    [...]
    Host: Can you give a quick summary between those 2? (Micro vs macro)
    Stan: Variation within a population is micro evolution. You can take a dog population and you can breed them real big and real real tiny. But that's not evolution, they are still dogs. They won't become lions or anything else. So what they did, they added mutations. Something has to change inside the individual that gets selected. That allows them to be different enough that something new will evolve out of that. Something new can be selected."

    It's amazing that he makes the exact same mistakes years after years.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And it doesn't help to show him a compilation of evidence, or an article written by a real scientist who explains why his notions are wrong. Stan won't listen to any of that.

      I'll check out those videos.

      Delete
  22. Stardusty Psyche said:

    " Actually, I have, for example in reference to 19 weeks versus 21 weeks, but I know it is not realistic to think you are going to study every word in detail."

    Maybe not study in detail, but I did read every word; it's just not what I meant here. I went back and found a few references to 19 weeks versus 21 versus something else, but never does it mention what 'you' think the line should be, and why? Nobody else mentioned specifics regarding that line either it seems. Before I get into that, you also said:

    " In my view the brain develops sufficiently to warrant protection of the individual far before week 20."

    But that is still not saying where the line would be. Is your point that you actually don't know where the line is and you think we should investigate more? That's more or less what I got from many of your comments but I am not sure...

    Now, that being said, I think you oversimplified the reasons behind the 20-week cutoff. For instance, people like me, who fully admit that they don't know enough to make the final call, are just saying that starting at around that mark, it starts to be too complicated to make a general blanket statement. So it's not that something magically change around that time, it's just that the closer we get to that time, the less comfortable I would be with a voluntary termination, without any medical reason.

    You actually agree with that general feeling when you stated:

    " "A 22-week pregnancy is putting the mother's life at risk, should we abort the pregnancy?" According to the SCOTUS that cannot be banned. Resitrictions on post viability abortions must include such an exception. I agree based on the right to self defense of the mother. However, I would add that a live delivery attempt should be required if it is medically sound for the mother."

    This is exactly my point. Even if you said that you would protect individuals far before week 20, you still agree that it's not all black-or-white; the mother still has individual rights, which allow her to choose to protect herself despite what the consequences for another individual are. But we should also give that individual, the 20-week fetus, a chance, as much as possible.

    But in today's world, there is no chance for a 20-week fetus to survive; or they are extremely low. Even at 22 or 24, the success rate is low, and the consequences to the rest of that individual's life can be really bad. Some argue that we should not even bother trying to save such young fetus, at least with current technology...

    The other relevant information is the brain activity. Again, I cannot find the specifics regarding your claim that abortion should not be allowed even much before the 20th week, because of the brain activity that fetus depict much before that line. However, this is not relevant, in my opinion. I am open to be convinced otherwise, but here's why: the difference between a fetus and an adult, who is on life support who may or may not come back to consciousness, is that the adult has memories, skills, a sense of self-awareness. The fetus, on the other hand, only has the potential to do these things. The fetus will not even remember what it meant to experience the pregnancy. Hence, there is no person to talk about yet. There's even no person to really talk about at the time of birth, and that's actually another reason why I don't think it's relevant.

    Does that make sense? Looking forward to hear why you disagree though...

    ReplyDelete
  23. Hugo "There's even no person to really talk about at the time of birth,"
    Indeed, by the definition of person as presented above, either Ryan's or your more general list of traits (memories, skills, a sense of self-awareness) infanticide is perfectly rational and personhood does not develop until much later, perhaps as late as the use of spoken language.

    Based upon such notions of personhood all laws against abortion and fetal homicide should be repealed. In that case elective abortion is rational up to the time of birth. After birth if mom throws the baby in the dumpster no big deal because that was not a person with memories, skills, or self-awareness.

    I am not saying you find such a prospect in any way good. I am pretty sure you find that notion revolting, yet it is the rational realization of the definitions of personhood proposed in this thread.

    "But that is still not saying where the line would be. Is your point that you actually don't know where the line is and you think we should investigate more?"
    By "line" I think you mean a gestational age so no, I don't think we know exactly where that is, but we can put some bounds on the problem and make some observations about brain development if that is to be the criteria for the beginning of a human life, as I propose it should be.

    It should be clear that without a brain there is not brain activity. That might seem to be a silly statement so trivial as to not be worth mentioning. But it has important implications for IVF, embryonic research, use of the IUD, the morning after pill, and early abortion.

    Under Webster v. Reproductive Health Services a presumption of viability at 20 weeks was upheld, thus I ask, how much has brain activity changed from week 19 to week 21? How about at week 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6? This is not a very long regression series to consider.
    Here a couple interesting links on the subject
    http://www.urbanchildinstitute.org/why-0-3/baby-and-brain
    http://www.whattoexpect.com/pregnancy/fetal-brain-nervous-system/

    What happens to 20 week viability when an artificial womb is developed?
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1T-lzTHrrw

    Recall, the SCOTUS defines viability as the ability to survive outside the mother with technical aid, not without. Technical aid is specifically included in the legal criteria.

    So, when the artificial womb is developed then then viability will be pushed back to the very earliest stages of pregnancy.

    In 1973 (the year of Roe v. Wade) viability was 28 weeks, now it is 20 weeks, and in future it will be 12, or 8 weeks. But what is it about the individual that we are protecting?

    I reject the notion that our humanity is a function of our physical location, method of blood oxygenation, method of obtaining nutrients, and method of removing bodily waste.

    I am me because of my brain function irrespective of all these other factors.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Stan was probably referring to me in this comment:

    "I saw that one of the IMS fans claims that many "logics" apply - apparently to be switched in, whenever needed to defeat rational Aristotelian logic. That is a firm indicator of the necessary defense of a narrative over any value of discrimination toward truth"

    If he is referring to me, then he has failed to understand me. I have no advocated logical pluralism, nor have I advocated swapping logics to defeat "Aristotelian Logic". What I have pointed out, and Stan has failed to understand (if he is referring to me) is that there are different logic with different axioms which produce different results than classical logics. Aristotelian logic falls under classical logic (except for conditions about vacuous truths), but there are non classical logics which reject some of the axioms of classical logic. Many valued logics use more than two truth values, intuitionistic logics reject the principle of excluded middle, and other logics reject bivalence... The point in bringing these up is to ask which logic Stan is referring to. Without specifying, we don't actually know what rules of inference apply. A paraconsistent logic would reject the principle of explosion, unlike a classical logic, so we would need to know if a paraconsistent logic is presupposed over a classical one. Stan has also failed to understand (if he is referring to me) that different logics are used for different types of statements. For example, predicate logics are used to talk about statements with quantifiers, and modal logics are used to talk about temporal, deontic, epistemic and other statement types using the operators we find in alethic logic. As far as I can tell, Stan has only read up on basic Aristotelian logic, so he is not even up to the standard of an undergrad student in philosophy or mathematics (often required to take proof courses).

    ReplyDelete
  25. Ryan,
    I am pretty sure he was referring to you yes, because JB said "In response, this is what Ryan said..."; and what you said is correct, regarding logic. Stan only refers to basic Aristotelian logic and uses that as some sort of pedigree, as if whatever position he holds is then necessarily logic, valid, true, etc... whatever he wishes to label his own position of the day. That being said, even though it's interesting to discuss types of logic, how they are used in different context or for mathematical proofs, what's the point when it comes to debates on issues of ethics, religion, politics, etc...? That's what I don’t understand from Stan's approach, as it's completely irrelevant whether someone understands logic or not, when it comes to debating everyday issues. The validity of the arguments do not depend on that understanding; it only helps to explain why an argument is valid, or not.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Stardusty Psyche,
    "by the definition of person as presented above, either Ryan's or your more general list of traits (memories, skills, a sense of self-awareness) infanticide is perfectly rational "
    No, these traits are the difference between an unborn fetus and a person who lived, some time, and is now brain dead. These traits, or lack therof, are not a justification for infanticide, from my point of view at least. It could be an argument for it I suppose, as you mentioned. But the point was that you're the one who made a parallel between brain development at the beginning of a new life and the state of a brain for someone who may or may not be "unplugged", at the end of their life. The traits are a description of 'why' the parallel is not a good one in my opinion.

    The rest of your comment is based on that it seems, so I reject that claim:
    "yet it is the rational realization of the definitions of personhood proposed in this thread."
    Because this is not what the proposition from my side is, not at all. I don't recognize my position anywhere in what you write honestly. I am trying to understand yours mostly... But let me respond to a few more sentences to try to clarify:

    "By "line" I think you mean a gestational age so no, I don't think we know exactly where that is, but we can put some bounds on the problem and make some observations about brain development if that is to be the criteria for the beginning of a human life, as I propose it should be."

    Yes, I am asking about a gestational age, because my point is that there must be a line, but we cannot, and will not, ever know where it is. The best we can do is express a gradual level of comfort with the different courses of actions that can be taken, at any given stage. Brain development is 'a' good item, sure, but it's so much more complicated than that. So, I am trying to ask you what your proposal changes? I don't see anything being added to help answer the question about where the line is, where we can be confident about it, where we should reserve judgment, etc...

    "It should be clear that without a brain there is not brain activity. That might seem to be a silly statement so trivial as to not be worth mentioning. But it has important implications for IVF, embryonic research, use of the IUD, the morning after pill, and early abortion."

    I don't see the link between brain activity and most of what you mentioned here:
    - IVF, it's just a technique to conceive
    - Embryonic research, may or may not be relevant, what's your point?
    - IUD, it's just a contraception method
    - Morning after pill, are you kidding?
    - Early abortion, what's early?

    "a presumption of viability at 20 weeks was upheld, thus I ask, how much has brain activity changed from week 19 to week 21? How about at week 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6? This is not a very long regression series to consider."

    Between 19 and 21, I don't know, do you? But we do know that at week 1 there is no brain to talk about, and that starting at week 30, there is a really good chance that the fetus will survive. Hence, the closer to 1, the more acceptable abortion is, the closer to 30, the least it is, and after 30, it's not relevant anymore; we call that a c-section and the baby lives.

    That was a bit rushed so I am looking forward to read clarifications and/or write more!

    ReplyDelete
  27. Hugo "Because this is not what the proposition from my side is, not at all."
    Infanticide is not your intended consequence, but justification for it follows logically from the definition of personhood Ryan proposed, and he acknowledges this explicitly above. Your items are in line with that definition, though formulated somewhat differently, lead to the same justification for infanticide.

    If you don't like the logical conclusions of your premises I suggest you reexamine your premises.

    "I don't see the link between brain activity and most of what you mentioned here:"
    To say that life begins at brain activity is also to say that until there is a brain there is no life. This is critical in the below items.

    Consider if Trump or McMullin wins. We could have a court that overturns Roe v. Wade and subsequent rulings that changed the trimester framework to a viability standard. We could see a court that defines life as beginning at conception, not brain activity, viability, birth, or personhood, leading to consequences below:

    "- IVF, it's just a technique to conceive"
    It manipulate fertilized eggs and would require treating each as a live human being, disallowing any procedure that killed them intentionally or endangered them excessively.
    "- Embryonic research, may or may not be relevant, what's your point?"
    It would be outlawed as it would kill human beings for medical research.
    "- IUD, it's just a contraception method"
    No, it would be a murder weapon, since it disrupts implantation.
    "- Morning after pill, are you kidding?"
    No, again, a murder weapon like the IUD.
    "- Early abortion, what's early?"
    It would be any intentional denial of subsistence to a fertilized egg or beyond.

    "
    Between 19 and 21, I don't know, do you?"
    Yes, not much. There is an active and functioning brain in both cases, but nothing close to the personhood standard proposed above.

    "starting at week 30, there is a really good chance that the fetus will survive"
    Survives how? Viability is legally defined as survival with technological aid. Thus, an artificial womb that attaches an existing umbilical cord to a blood processing machine would push viability back to about 6 weeks.

    "least it is, and after 30, it's not relevant anymore; we call that a c-section and the baby lives."
    Not under federal law in the USA, only under state law in 43 states, New Mexico being a glaring exception.

    In Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA, in 2016, today, a woman can, and many do, walk into clinic 28 weeks pregnant and for no medical reason have an abortion that kills the baby in utero and delivers the child dead directly into a toilet, literally, that is how it is done, with a poison needle to the baby's heart followed by a toilet delivery.

    Further, this procedure is is legal under federal law up to any gestational age, including 40 weeks. There is no requirement under federal law that a life saving c-section be performed, but by clinic rules some medical indication is required before killing the baby in utero by poison injection after 28 weeks.

    "Elective Abortion through 28 weeks
    Later Abortions for Maternal Indications
    Later Abortion for Fetal Indications"
    http://www.southwesternwomens.com/





    ReplyDelete
  28. Ok so the big problem here is that there is a difference between what we think should be legal and what we think is morally acceptable. I am not clear as to what your position is on, well, either actually. All you keep saying is that brain activity should someone be taken into account for determining not only when it's acceptable to terminate a pregnancy, but also whether some contraceptive methods are acceptable.

    Therefore, when you said:
    "Infanticide is not your intended consequence, but justification for it follows logically from [...]"
    You're over-simplifying and addressing a strawman, and I will repeat why: this is not the only set of criteria in my opinion. And it does not seem to be Ryan's point of view either but I cannot speak for him. If someone makes an argument with premises about an unborn baby's personhood, and then conclude that a 30-week fetus can be killed purely by choice, I would disagree with them. The simplest reason in my opinion: you had 30 weeks to make up your mind. Too late now, that baby has a right to life. Give it for adoption if you want, but harming that baby should not be allowed in my opinion.

    But should it be legal anyway? Well, the abortion should be legal for sure. A woman should have the right to terminate a pregnancy, at any point, for any reason. I find it appalling to hear of examples like the ones you gave, when a woman chooses to get an abortion at 28-week, but that's simply the unfortunate consequences of a just law where women remain in full control of their body, and cannot be forced to be used as a womb for another person. And the point here is that even if we were to assume that a new person exists at any stage after conception, that would still not change my position on the right of women to get abortion, at any time. The real question is whether the embryo/fetus/baby has a right to be saved, or at least get an attempt at saving their life, with the best technology available at the time.

    And I must repeat again that 99% of abortions happen before week 12! So when you say that 'many' do choose that 28-week abortion scenario, I wonder how 'many' actually means... it has to be some incredibly low % of abortions, and I would be shocked if they are actually by choice. My bet would be that, in most cases, it's not really the woman's choice; something happened that is out of her control, or for medical reasons...

    " "I don't see the link between brain activity and most of what you mentioned here:"
    To say that life begins at brain activity is also to say that until there is a brain there is no life. This is critical in the below items.
    [...]Yes, not much. There is an active and functioning brain in both cases, but nothing close to the personhood standard proposed above.
    "

    I still have no idea what you are trying to get to... and it got even more bizarre with the examples:


    " "- IVF, it's just a technique to conceive"
    It manipulate fertilized eggs and would require treating each as a live human being, disallowing any procedure that killed them intentionally or endangered them excessively
    "

    They are just cells, why would you treat each as a live human being?

    And all of the others are actually the same thing... why do you, or would you, care so much about fertilized eggs? But I am not even sure if that's what you actually think or you're just presenting wild theoretical scenario where fertilized eggs are granted the same value/rights as, say, a fully development human.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Hugo "30 weeks to make up your mind. Too late now, that baby has a right to life."
    Ok, so in your view a human being is a person, has an intrinsic right to life in utero at 30 weeks. Fine, but that is inconsistent with this definition.
    "the adult has memories, skills, a sense of self-awareness. The fetus, on the other hand, only has the potential to do these things. The fetus will not even remember what it meant to experience the pregnancy. Hence, there is no person to talk about yet"

    Your concept of a 30 week in utero person with an intrinsic right to life, besides being opposed by our own criteria, is also opposed by Ryan's definition:
    "Personhood definition - [A person is any being with the capacity to reason, is self aware, and can desire to exist into the future]"

    I am pretty sure both you and Ryan are just regular guys who don't revel in abortion and certainly don't want to go around killing babies, yet your stated definitions lead logically to the legality of doing so.

    "A woman should have the right to terminate a pregnancy, at any point, for any reason"
    You are contradicting yourself again. I invite you to think this through more carefully. First you say a 30 week in utero baby has a right to life, then you say a woman can electively kill that baby. Which is it?

    “abortion at 28-week, but that's simply the unfortunate consequences of a just law where women remain in full control of their body, and cannot be forced to be used as a womb for another person.”
    When it comes to providing sustanence for our children none of us are in full control of our bodies. Parents have obligations to use their bodies to provide sustenance to their children. Failure to do so is at least depraved indifference and a most capital murder.

    "And I must repeat again that 99% of abortions happen before week 12!"
    Ok, how about if 99% of parents do not kill their children, let's not worry about that little 1%. Is that acceptable to you? No, of course it isn't, and I am not suggesting seriously you think it is, only pointing out to you that in some matters the only acceptable percentage is 0%

    "My bet would be that, in most cases, it's not really the woman's choice; something happened that is out of her control, or for medical reasons...
    "
    Why would you bet that that? I think you have an overly angelic image of women and mothers as a whole population. There are a whole lot of very ignorant, abusive, criminal, violent, narcissistic, and generally scumbag women and mothers out there.

    "" "- IVF, it's just a technique to conceive"
    It manipulate fertilized eggs and would require treating each as a live human being, disallowing any procedure that killed them intentionally or endangered them excessively"

    They are just cells, why would you treat each as a live human being?"
    I wouldn't but a very great many people would. My proposed standard of brain activity would not. In discussing when a human life begins it is important to consider all stages of development and have a rationale that applies at every stage.

    "But I am not even sure if that's what you actually think or you're just presenting wild theoretical scenario where fertilized eggs are granted the same value/rights as, say, a fully development human."
    It is indeed wild in the sense of being grossly irrational but it is the view of vast numbers of Americans, many millions of voters, and a great many politicians who are are in fact in office today.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Stardusty Psyche said:
    "Hugo "30 weeks to make up your mind. Too late now, that baby has a right to life."
    Ok, so in your view a human being is a person, has an intrinsic right to life in utero at 30 weeks. Fine,
    "
    It's not even really about whether the baby is a person or not yet. My main point is that the woman had 30 weeks to decide, so it is my opinion that she should not be permitted to do whatever the heck she wants with what's inside her at that point: a fetus that will most likely survive this very early delivery. But, again, it's her body, so she should not be forced to continue the pregnancy, regardless of the state of the baby as a person or not.

    "but that is inconsistent with this definition. [...] "
    How many times do I need to tell you that this definition was NOT THE ONLY THING that matters? The main point was to show why YOUR comparison of a end-of-life scenario does not offer any parallel with an unborn baby.

    "I am pretty sure both you and Ryan are just regular guys who don't revel in abortion and certainly don't want to go around killing babies, yet your stated definitions lead logically to the legality of doing so."

    To be perfectly candid, the first thing that came to mind here, and it's not the first time, is: fuck you that's not what I said. And I now understand better why Ryan and im-skeptical got annoyed at the way you approached the topic here. But, let's forget that 'fuck you', that's just a figure of speech, and let me use your style instead:

    I am pretty sure you are just a regular why who doesn't revel in misrepresentations, and certainly doesn't want to go around and use passive aggressive language for no good reason, yet your consistent misreprentation of my position in order to create false logical deduction is frankly annoying.

    "You are contradicting yourself again. I invite you to think this through more carefully. First you say a 30 week in utero baby has a right to life, then you say a woman can electively kill that baby. Which is it?"

    I invite you to read again what I wrote so that you can understand why it's not a contradiction. And I would invite you to re-read the very first sentence of my last post as well, as it offers some context that seems to be lost on you. Here, let me make it clearer:

    1) Ok so the big problem here is that there is a difference between what we think should be legal and what we think is morally acceptable. You don't seem to understand what these words mean, so I will explain a little more... just kidding... I know you know... but why are you ignoring that?

    2) Regarding your question of 'which is it?' I was already very clear: The abortion should be legal for sure. A woman should have the right to terminate a pregnancy, at any point, for any reason. Do I think this is always the moral thing to do? Hell no, at around 30 week for instance, that's the worst time possible in my opinion, because you have a pretty complete baby, yet you cannot wait just a few more weeks? But in any case, you're the one who confused 2 things here, because I said that the ABORTION, i.e THE TERMINATION OF THE PREGNANCY, should always be legal. It does not mean that the 30-week baby/fetus/thing, whatever you call it, should be destroyed.

    Is that clear?

    ReplyDelete
  31. Hugo

    "It's not even really about whether the baby is a person or not yet. "
    Really? You don't care about electively killing a person?

    "My main point is that the woman had 30 weeks to decide, so it is my opinion that she should not be permitted to do whatever the heck she wants with what's inside her at that point:"
    You say she "should not be permitted". How? That means making abortion after 30 weeks illegal.

    "a fetus that will most likely survive this very early delivery. But, again, it's her body, so she should not be forced to continue the pregnancy, regardless of the state of the baby as a person or not."
    Hugo, you are all over the map. Now she should not be forced to continue the pregnancy. You really should think this all through more carefully.

    "How many times do I need to tell you that this definition was NOT THE ONLY THING that matters?"
    The name of this blog is ...skeptic... That means having consistent positions. That's what skeptics strive for, at least the rational sort.

    "Ok so the big problem here is that there is a difference between what we think should be legal and what we think is morally acceptable. ... but why are you ignoring that?"
    When you say "she should not be permitted" you are inherently advocating the incorporation of your prohibitive moral opinions into the law.

    How do you propose "she should not be permitted" without making it illegal? Illegality is the only method we have to not allow abortion.

    "The abortion should be legal for sure. A woman should have the right to terminate a pregnancy, at any point, for any reason"
    Ok, so you advocate for the in utero killing of term babies. A new born baby has a right to life in your view, but 10 hours prior it should be perfectly legal to kill that life in utero and deliver the baby dead.

    You very apparently have not thought this through.

    "I was already very clear: The abortion should be legal for sure."
    Abortion at any point should be legal by these words.

    "A woman should have the right to terminate a pregnancy, at any point, for any reason."
    So, even if that termination will kill a person, you don't care. If that termination results in avoidable bodily harm to the unborn person you don't care.

    " I said that the ABORTION, i.e THE TERMINATION OF THE PREGNANCY, should always be legal. It does not mean that the 30-week baby/fetus/thing, whatever you call it, should be destroyed."
    Abortions always kill unless they are botched, which does happen from time to time. The procedure for an abortion is the opposite of the procedure for an induced live birth.

    Further, it is unethical to electively induce a premature live birth because that is an intention infliction of avoidable harm to a human being, the baby, which is malpractice and gross child abuse.

    I am not saying you are a baby killer or a child abuser, but your assertions lead logically to those very things, so you quite apparently have not thought them through.





    ReplyDelete
  32. Stardusty,

    Imagine this scenario:

    You wake up one day to find that there is a five-year-old invalid laying next to you. The child can't move voluntarily, and can't speak or express any cogent thought. Further, you find that there are tubes surgically implanted in your stomach and your blood vessels that supply nourishment to the child.

    This child could be sustained by artificial means, but at least for now, it is completely dependent on you. It has measurable brain activity (not necessarily cognitive function), but if you disconnect the tubes, it would die. And the courts have declared that if you disconnect it, that would constitute murder.

    Do you agree with the courts? Please explain your reasoning.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. (technical note, when I click on the links in the sidebar I do go get directly to the comment summarized in the sidebar, rather, just to the top of the page. I am using Firefox.)

      Your situational ethics hypothetical is similar to the case of a woman who gets pregnant as a result of being raped.

      Deadly force is justified in self defense when there is an imminent and unusual threat to life or substantial bodily harm.

      An affirmative action that has the plainly foreseeable likelihood of resulting in the avoidable death of a human being may well be considered murder in some degree.

      Simply refusing to take life saving action might be considered depraved indifference depending on the circumstances.

      Based on the construction of your hypothetical as written I would say, therefore, that I agree with the court, since a disconnection would be an affirmative action with the foreseeable result of leading directly to the avoidable death of a human being. In that case I would be morally and legally obligated to seek medical assistance to have the child surgically removed from me in a manner that does not substantially endanger the life or health of the child.

      Delete
    2. So if you don't have the means to provide an alternative way for this thing to live, you're just stuck with it. I didn't try to say how it got there, but I did imply that it wasn't voluntary on your part. Your position is that it's acceptable for you to be deprived of your own right to live free of this burden for the sake of this parasite that doesn't even know it's alive.

      Here is the calculus, as I see it:
      By your reasoning there are two beings - one is miserable and the other doesn't care.
      But if you disconnect it, one is free and the other still doesn't care.

      Delete
    3. "Here is the calculus, as I see it:
      By your reasoning there are two beings - one is miserable and the other doesn't care.
      But if you disconnect it, one is free and the other still doesn't care."
      By that reasoning, taken alone at face value, you have justified the murder of a sleeping person who is making you miserable.

      This is connected to the personhood definition Ryan proposed above. I reject that definition and I reject your calculus.

      My basis is the notion of an intrinsic right to life of a human being irrespective of their present state of consciousness.

      The rights of an individual do not come and go with their state of consciousness. It is illegal and immoral to steal from, rape, or kill an unconscious person.

      " Your position is that it's acceptable for you to be deprived of your own right to live free of this burden for the sake of this parasite that doesn't even know it's alive. "
      It is unacceptable that some third party, which you did not specify but must exist to have done this nefarious connection, has violated my rights to self determination and bodily integrity by unwillingly attaching a dependent child to me.

      But that is not the fault of the dependent child. We do not punish the child for the crimes of the adult.

      The law in 43 states agrees with me with respect to post viability abortions. Hopefully the other 7 states and DC will come to reject your calculus as well.

      Delete
    4. By that reasoning, taken alone at face value, you have justified the murder of a sleeping person who is making you miserable.
      - No. This isn't a "sleeping person". This is a biological entity that can't think and has no care about what happens to it. Would this thing be dismayed or protest if you tried to kill it? No. Because it doesn't have cognitive function. And that is in keeping with the legality of ending life support for those who are in a vegetative state. It's not murder if it's not a person. This is just a mass of flesh that can't live on its own.

      This is connected to the personhood definition Ryan proposed above. I reject that definition and I reject your calculus.
      - And I reject yours. Because it isn't based on any kind of reason that I can discern.

      My basis is the notion of an intrinsic right to life of a human being irrespective of their present state of consciousness. ... The rights of an individual do not come and go with their state of consciousness. It is illegal and immoral to steal from, rape, or kill an unconscious person.
      - This isn't about "present state" of consciousness. It has nothing to do with that. A person can sleep. A vegetable has no capacity to be a person.

      It is unacceptable that some third party, which you did not specify but must exist to have done this nefarious connection, has violated my rights to self determination and bodily integrity by unwillingly attaching a dependent child to me.
      - So we agree on that. But nevertheless, you accept the unacceptable. Why should the "rights" of this non-person outweigh your rights?

      But that is not the fault of the dependent child. We do not punish the child for the crimes of the adult.
      - It all comes down (as I have said before) to how we define personhood. If we accept that a person has the right to life, which I do, then we must define just what a person is. And that's what I have been trying to get you to do this entire time, without any success. If you call it a human biological entity that has some metabolic function, then I reject your simplistic definition, because it includes those who are vegetables and would die if not kept alive. It is not punishment when there is no awareness of the outcome.

      But worse than that, you would place the burden on me to keep that vegetable alive at my own expense. That's immoral, as I see it. If you want to insist that vegetables must be kept alive, then take on that responsibility yourself. But you have no right to make it my (or anyone else's) responsibility. Your "morality" is unthinking adherence to an ill-defined principle that you can't even articulate. I'll base mine on something that is a bit more meaningful.

      Delete
  33. Stardusty Psyche said:
    ""It's not even really about whether the baby is a person or not yet. "
    Really? You don't care about electively killing a person?
    "
    Seriously, genuine question here: are you purposely asking that question to annoy me? or did you simply miss the sentence right after?
    "... it is my opinion that she should not be permitted to do whatever the heck she wants with what's inside her at that point: a fetus that will most likely survive this very early delivery"
    This is the answer to what you wrote; I explicitly stated that 'yes', I do care about electively killing a person/baby/fetus, whatever we are talking about. Quoting that 1 sentence, alone, was meaningless.

    "You say she "should not be permitted". How? That means making abortion after 30 weeks illegal."
    Abortions, as in the termination of a pregnancy, should always be permitted, no matter what. Here, the better choice of word would be that I consider this to be immoral. Either get an abortion much before, or wait for the delivery and give the baby up for abortion if you changed your mind. Getting an abortion for no critical reasons after 30 weeks of gestation seem to be cruel to that almost fully formed baby.

    "Hugo, you are all over the map. Now she should not be forced to continue the pregnancy. You really should think this all through more carefully."
    I am quoting 3 sentences, 2 of which are just insults, and 1 which shows that you still don't understand my position... So let me repeat: a woman should never ever be forced to continue the pregnancy. See im-skeptical's analogy/thought experiment; this is where it's relevant.

    ""How many times do I need to tell you that this definition was NOT THE ONLY THING that matters?"
    The name of this blog is ...skeptic... That means having consistent positions. That's what skeptics strive for, at least the rational sort.
    "

    You're replying with a general platitude and another passive-aggressive insult basically. You imply that my position, which you don't seem to fully grasp, is not consistent. Do you have anything else but insults? I am starting to wonder...

    And again, this comment was about YOUR definition. You are the one who brought up the end-of-life comparison with brain dead people. You brought up some sort of vague idea about how we should use a similar/identical bar to determine whether an unborn baby is a person, just like we look at brain activity to determine whether a dying person should be kept alive artificially. And my answer to this is, and has always been, that this definition was NOT THE ONLY THING that matters.

    But you replied with insults... good job.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hugo "are you purposely asking that question to annoy me? "
      No
      "or did you simply miss the sentence right after?"
      No
      "... it is my opinion that she should not be permitted to do whatever the heck she wants with what's inside her at that point: a fetus that will most likely survive this very early delivery"
      Why? If it is not a person it is just tissue, and can be disposed of like fat in a liposuction.
      "This is the answer to what you wrote; I explicitly stated that 'yes', I do care about electively killing a person/baby/fetus, "
      Why? You said it isn't about being it being a person.
      You are being highly inconsistent, which I state not as a mere insult, rather, a fair characterization of the set of statements you are making.

      "Abortions, as in the termination of a pregnancy,"
      You need to be more clear in your terminology. An abortion intentionally kills the fetus irrespective of the stage of pregnancy. A third trimester abortion is performed by injecting the baby with poison in utero , then delivering the baby dead (or cutting the skull, evacuating the brain, and then crushing the skull with forceps, although that procedure has since been banned). This is vastly different from an induction, which is followed by neo-natal ICU care.

      " 2 of which are just insults"
      Well, they weren't meant to be insults, my friend, more like an invitation to consider your words more carefully.

      " So let me repeat: a woman should never ever be forced to continue the pregnancy."
      That is a highly unethical position and you will not be able to find a licensed physician in the USA who will electively induce a premature birth without maternal or fetal indications. To do so would be extreme child abuse and malpractice. So, I again invite you to consider your positions more thoroughly.

      "See im-skeptical's analogy/thought experiment;"
      Ok, done.

      "You imply that my position, which you don't seem to fully grasp, is not consistent. "
      Not precisely an implication, rather, a direct observation. You feel I do not grasp your position, and to the extent that I cannot find a single consistent position of yours I can see how you might think that, but in truth I grasp that you have not made a set of consistent statements on this subject.

      Try not to get so insulted, my friend.

      "this definition was NOT THE ONLY THING that matters."
      The humanity, or right to life, or personhood of the fetus is the only thing that matters in legalizing all abortions. If the fetus is not a human being, or person, or have a right to life then an abortion of that fetus cannot be prohibited.

      If we are to prohibit an abortion we must first demonstrate that the unborn human being is a person with a right to life. Further, we must demonstrate that that right to life supersedes all other considerations, such as maternal or fetal indications, parental rights to self determination, privacy, or any other consideration.

      You may come up with a variety of other considerations, but the right to life of an individual human being is supreme. A parent might feel very put upon and very stressed, and very constrained by a dependent child, but that is just too bad morally and legally and such considerations are superseded by the right to life of the child. You can't just murder your child because he or she is a big hindrance to your life.

      The only competing right that rises to the level of the right to life of the child is the right to self defense of the mother against an imminent and abnormal threat to her own life or severe bodily harm.








      Delete
  34. " "Ok so the big problem here is that there is a difference between what we think should be legal and what we think is morally acceptable. ... but why are you ignoring that?"
    When you say "she should not be permitted" you are inherently advocating the incorporation of your prohibitive moral opinions into the law.

    How do you propose "she should not be permitted" without making it illegal? Illegality is the only method we have to not allow abortion.
    "

    You are again replying to a quote with something that has nothing to do with the quote. My quote is about the difference between what is moral and legal. Your answer is only about what is legal. I specifically asked you: WHY ARE YOU IGNORING THAT DIFFERENCE? Yet, you reply by ignoring the difference and only focusing on what is legal or not. Will you answer this time?

    " "The abortion should be legal for sure. A woman should have the right to terminate a pregnancy, at any point, for any reason"
    Ok, so you advocate for the in utero killing of term babies. A new born baby has a right to life in your view, but 10 hours prior it should be perfectly legal to kill that life in utero and deliver the baby dead.

    You very apparently have not thought this through.
    "

    First of all, here's another insult... really you’re the one who should think about how he approaches a topic. We all have slightly different opinions and understanding of the world around us. Accusations regarding what the other is 'thinking' about are the worst kind. Literally the worst kind. I am not exaggerating here so I will repeat it because you are also insisting apparently. You cannot tell me that I have not thought this through when we have had exchanges over several days now. You cannot accuse me of not thinking when I read this entire thread. You cannot accuse me of not thinking about it just because I reach different conclusions from yours. Frankly, as I am writing this, this makes me realize even more of how much of a self-righteous asshole you are. Because the implication is clear here, again; you obviously imply that YOU thought this through and I haven't.

    And you know what's ironic? You clearly did not understand the distinction I am making between the abortion, the termination of the pregnancy, and any action taken to specifically kill/save the unborn human thing that is being removed from the woman's body. As in the next quotes show:

    " So, even if that termination will kill a person, you don't care. If that termination results in avoidable bodily harm to the unborn person you don't care. [...] Abortions always kill unless they are botched, which does happen from time to time. The procedure for an abortion is the opposite of the procedure for an induced live birth. "

    NO, I DO CARE. But it does not mean that it should be illegal. If you equate the term 'abortion' purely will 'killing whatever is in the woman', that is a gross over-simplification, which is pretty much what you keep doing throughout this discussion... This is not a simple topic; there is no simple 'line' between when it's 'ok' and 'not ok' to terminate a pregnancy ETHICALLY. But there is a very clear line, in my opinion, when it comes to terminating a pregnancy LEGALLY: anytime is fine, because we should never force someone to use their body in a way they wish not to use their body. That part is really simple, but it's part of a very complex topic.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hugo,
      "Your answer is only about what is legal. I specifically asked you: WHY ARE YOU IGNORING THAT DIFFERENCE? "
      You said "she should not be permitted". To not permit X is to make X illegal. Making X illegal is the only social mechanism we have to "not permit" X.

      I am fully aware that morality and law are two different but related things. You inherently focus on law when you speak of "she should not be permitted".

      "You cannot tell me that I have not thought this through when we have had exchanges over several days now."
      I appreciate your engagement but several days is not a great deal of time to ruminate on such a weighty subject. For myself, it has taken many years of reading and conversation for my position details to evolve to a single self consistent set of assertions and positions.

      "You clearly did not understand the distinction I am making between the abortion, the termination of the pregnancy, and any action taken to specifically kill/save the unborn human thing that is being removed from the woman's body"
      That is because you are not using the word "abortion" in a common manner. A pre-viability abortion results in the death of the fetus by definition of the word "viability", but more specifically because highly disruptive means are used to dismember the fetus in utero by vacuum or surgically. A post-viability abortion results in the death of the fetus by inflicting fetal demise in utero and then delivering the baby dead.

      Abortion results in no live birth.

      You used the word "abortion" in your mind, apparently, to include induction of a premature live birth, which by any general use definition of "abortion" is incorrect.

      "If you equate the term 'abortion' purely will 'killing whatever is in the woman', that is a gross over-simplification, "
      No, it isn't. Abortion necessarily results in no live birth in any generally recognized usage of the word. If you are referring to an induction of a premature baby with the intention of a live birth you need to not use the word abortion in that case if you wish to be generally understood in a public conversation.

      "But there is a very clear line, in my opinion, when it comes to terminating a pregnancy LEGALLY: anytime is fine, because we should never force someone to use their body in a way they wish not to use their body. That part is really simple"
      Then you are advocating for the repeal of present state and federal law, or you don't realize that abortion is illegal in 43 states post-viability and that federal law bans a particular abortion procedure.

      Present law varies greatly from state to state but you are apparently advocating something which is much simpler, although highly unethical.

      It is highly unethical to electively induce a premature live birth and you will not find a reputable licensed physician in the USA who will do so because it would be severe child abuse and malpractice.

      Delete
  35. " Further, it is unethical to electively induce a premature live birth because that is an intention infliction of avoidable harm to a human being, the baby, which is malpractice and gross child abuse. "

    And here, finally, you say something which does make perfect sense! I find it appalling that a woman would choose to get an abortion at the 25th week of pregnancy. It does inflict avoidable harm to the baby. I also find it absurd that abortions at the 30-week mark would purposely kill the fetus, instead of trying to save it, as you described them. But there are tons of things that are appalling, unethical, immoral, yet legal, and that's a good thing! I believe laws should help protect our individual freedoms, not infringe upon them. I see this as the same principle as 'innocent until proven guilty'. I would rather see 5 criminals walk away free than 1 innocent person in prison. Just like I would rather see stupid women get abortions at 30-week if that's what it takes to ensure that the other 99% of abortions can be done safely and legally; no woman should ever be forced to continue with a pregnancy.

    I know many people disagree with this, especially here in the US, but it's not like that everywhere thankfully. For instance, I am from Canada (Hi Ryan!) and actually a bit too young to have witnessed debates on the topic, since it has been pretty much settled a long time ago. Even the ~10 years we had under a Conservative government did not affect that. It was only as an adult, and mostly because of the online presence of the American Religious Right, that I really thought this through, and took the time to weigh the pros/cons, the importance of definitions, the distinction between legal and moral, the distinction between termination of the pregnancy and killing of a fetus, the details of how fertilization happen and how the gestation works, and so many other details and complex questions of law and ethics.

    Oh but there was one more quote:
    " I am not saying you are a baby killer or a child abuser, but your assertions lead logically to those very things, so you quite apparently have not thought them through. "
    Fuck off, seriously, you brought nothing to this conversation but insults, be it direct or passive-aggressive, and simplistic definitions of what it means to have brain activity. And I doubt you have anything concrete to present. But you can have the last word... unless you misquote/misrepresent my position again, because I never let go of that!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "But there are tons of things that are appalling, unethical, immoral, yet legal, and that's a good thing!"
      Unethical medical practice should be illegal. It is not a good thing to allow physicians to practice unethical medicine. Physicians who practice unethical medicine are subject to losing their license and possibly going to jail, which is a good thing.

      "I believe laws should help protect our individual freedoms, not infringe upon them"
      Nothing infringes on an individual's freedom more than being murdered. To inflict severe bodily harm on an individual is a gross infringement. Your proposed positions would do both to the unborn child. Fortunately your ideas about elective premature induction for a live birth are malpractice in all states, and your ideas about post-viability abortion are illegal in 43 states. Unfortunately 7 states and DC do permit abortion at any stage and are in fact the scene of an ongoing American holocaust.

      " I would rather see stupid women get abortions at 30-week if that's what it takes to ensure that the other 99% of abortions can be done safely and legally; no woman should ever be forced to continue with a pregnancy."
      Then you are willing to kill and maim babies for the convenience of parents. I do not respect that position in any degree.

      "Fuck off, seriously,"
      You very apparently do not take criticism of your positions very well or having your inconsistencies and the consequences of your positions pointed out.

      When you let go of your anger you will open the door to learning.

      Delete
  36. Stardusty Psyche said:
    ""This is the answer to what you wrote; I explicitly stated that 'yes', I do care about electively killing a person/baby/fetus, "
    Why? You said it isn't about being it being a person.
    You are being highly inconsistent, which I state not as a mere insult, rather, a fair characterization of the set of statements you are making.
    "

    Nope, nothing is inconsistent in my opinion. You just disagree with it and misrepresent it, which is what I said I would address:
    - Terminating a pregnancy should always legal, if the woman chooses to. There are pros and cons with that position, just like any position, but I will not get into it because I am done with this conversation. But, I am very clear and consistent: terminating a pregnancy should always be allowed, legally.
    - Terminating a pregnancy is not always morally acceptable, in my opinion. Sometimes it's super easy to determine whether it's moral; sometimes it's super hard to determine whether it's moral. Again, I will not go into details, but there is nothing inconsistent with what I think should be the right legal framework.

    ""Abortions, as in the termination of a pregnancy,"
    You need to be more clear in your terminology. An abortion intentionally kills the fetus irrespective of the stage of pregnancy. A third trimester abortion is performed by injecting the baby with poison in utero , then delivering the baby dead (or cutting the skull, evacuating the brain, and then crushing the skull with forceps, although that procedure has since been banned). This is vastly different from an induction, which is followed by neo-natal ICU care.
    "

    How could I be clearer when I specifically state that I am using the term 'abortion' as interchangeable with 'termination of a pregnancy'? Again, this is a misrepresentation of my position, which is clear and consistent: termination should always be legal, but the timing may or may not make it moral, in my opinion. The descriptions you give of the consequences of late-term abortions, and how difficult it is to actually save a baby from a late termination of pregnancy, are precisely the reasons behind my opinion that it is not always moral for a woman to have an abortion.

    "Well, they weren't meant to be insults, my friend, more like an invitation to consider your words more carefully."

    Sure, my response might have been a bit too strong. At the same time, you double-down on your misrepresentation and seem incapable of seeing the difference between opinions on legal issues and opinions on ethical issues. You also seem to think that because we disagree on some points, that necessarily make my position inconsistent, which is just silly. It's irrelevant whether we agree or disagree on a position to determine whether it's consistent or not. I don't care if you call my position unethical; it's your opinion. But whether it's consistent is not a matter of opinion; it is a factual matter.

    I carefully read the rest, and I simply disagree. You raise good points, it's consistent, but again, I disagree. That's all.

    ReplyDelete
  37. "Hugo
    - Terminating a pregnancy should always legal, if the woman chooses to. There are pros and cons with that position, just like any position, but I will not get into it because I am done with this conversation."
    You are advocating a highly unethical position of terminating a normal post viability pregnancy by induction and live birth, thus placing the newborn baby at severe risk of death or permanent injury. Really? A woman can just snap her fingers and cause her baby to suffer permanent bodily injury and grow up with severe health problems? Fortunately your notion is recognized as malpractice in the USA.

    "How could I be clearer when I specifically state that I am using the term 'abortion' as interchangeable with 'termination of a pregnancy'?
    By learning what the terms mean and applying them correctly.

    "(I)seem incapable of seeing the difference between opinions on legal issues and opinions on ethical issues."
    In medicine unethical practice is malpractice and is illegal.

    "I don't care if you call my position unethical; it's your opinion."
    In addition to being my opinion it is also the law. There is no universal right to ending a pregnancy under the law in the USA. You are wrong as a matter of ethics and you are wrong as a matter of law.





    ReplyDelete