A Conception's Right To Life

[Lagboltz]

I see that Palerider is back to acrimonious bickering, challenges, and veiled insults. I will not address his post because as I said, there is an impasse. Also I will reverse my previous direction and be concerned about the moral issues of the infirm, elderly, retarded, etc. along with abortion. Palerider often mentioned them, but I refused to consider them at that time.

Whereas this thread is concerned with the survival of individual "humans", I am concerned about the survival of the entire human race. No, our race is not endangered, but the question is, what will life be like in the coming decades?

200 years ago rural settlers survived only when their land could produce enough food to supply energy needed to create the food and necessities to live. Settlers had beasts of burden to till the soil that would feed those animals along with other animals and themselves. They canned and dried food for the winter. Their energy was largely from photosynthesis and maybe a windmill for pumping water. One calorie of their energy had to produce at least one calorie of food or they would die.

Earlier in the last century it was predicted that the earth could not produce enough to feed as many as 6 billion people. But new technology allowed for fertilization, irrigation, pesticides, hybrids, etc. and we found it could be done. But to do that in the US now, on the average it requires 10 calories of external energy to produce 1 calorie of food. This energy includes fertilization, irrigation, pesticides, machinery, transportation, refrigeration, packaging, warehousing, retailing, spoilage, and labor. The early settler would not have survived with that ratio of energy.

So predictions for sustainability are complicated. How can we sustain the predicted 9 billion in the year 2050? How much extra energy will that take? How about later on: 12 billion? Is there enough arable soil? You choose any population number that you think the earth can support. Our exponential population growth will head there.

So, it becomes very obvious that at some point, population stabilization is imperative. How can that happen? There is only one way: People will have to die off at the same rate they are born. So the basic moral question we have to answer is who gets to live and who gets to die.

One moral viewpoint is that everybody should be allowed to live as long as possible. Can this work decades into the future? Our live span is getting longer due to medical technology. A friend told me technology can allow survival of premature babies born as short as 5 months after conception. Are we morally obligated to do this? One person I once knew started a company that froze people shortly after death so that technology of the future would be able to thaw them out and cure the problem that killed them. He sincerely thought it was immoral to allow people to rot in burial. I think he went overboard on morality. Medicare and Medicaid is around 20% of our national budget, and getting larger. The government cannot support it's growth a few decades from now. What do we do with retirees that need medical help? What do we do with anyone who can't afford medicine? who can't afford a home or food? Food and medical are two examples that I covered. There are many other resources that are also limited.

To sustain future population stabilization, people will have to have shorter life spans on the average, or fewer babies have to be born, or some mixture of the two. For every birth there must be a death.

Who gets to be born?

Who gets to die?

This now becomes a question of triage. I learned that word this year when I applied to take a course for hurricane disaster preparedness. Memorize the second definition. It will be useful in future decades.

Triage:
1. A process for sorting injured people into groups based on their need for or likely benefit from immediate medical treatment. Triage is used in hospital emergency rooms, on battlefields, and at disaster sites when limited medical resources must be allocated.
2. A system used to allocate a scarce commodity, such as food, only to those capable of deriving the greatest benefit from it.

It is hard to imagine the hopelessness and anguish of dying in a concentration camp, of seeing your brother dying of cancer, starvation in African nations, virus epidemics that kill 50 million people, loved ones that die as collateral damage in useless wars, .....

Sentience endows us with the agony and ecstasy of life.
A fetus without a nervous system doesn't share that.

There are many other social morals that involve abortion. A young mother burdened with the cost and the difficulty of school while carrying an unwanted baby. Another child of a single parent with too many kids who will become a future gang members ...

Will laws ever allow one to pull the plug on Mrs Schiavo who was comatose for 15 years and used up 2 million dollars to keep her alive? Hard question. How about comatose for 2 months? What will be the medical and moral guidelines? Will we allow you to unplug life support on a very old patient who doesn't recognize his family due to late live dementia? Hard question. How will you handle Medicare for millions of baby boomers? Hard question.

Triage is truly a moral dilemma. No stance is morally clean. You just have to grit your teeth, make a choice, and proceed. I hope my area on the gulf coast is never hit by a hurricane so that I would be put in the position of making choices that triage demands. I went through 4 near misses in the last four years.

I have made a stance of social triage on the 40 million abortions since Roe vs. Wade. It is one element of triage that I think carries the least harm to society now and in the future. It is your turn to tell me what 40 million people will have to die so 40 million extra can live. If not now, how about in a few decades? What will your moral code be on social triage. Who will you decide should die?

 

[Chip]

It is clear, Palerider, that all Lagboltz is going to do from here on is dodge the topic matter of this thread that was set by the thread's title and the opening post.

He will divertively digress with topical irrlevancies rather than address your points that were calabrated relative to this thread's topic and respond to them on topic.

Though he is intelligent and interesting to read, his refusal to stay on topic, coupled with the fact that he is obviously intelligent, indicates that his aversion to the topic is emotionally based, that he is likely troubled by the facts of the matter which indict his pre-conceived pro-abortionist ideology, emotionally troubled to the degree he avoids dealing head-on with it when you approach him directly on the crux of the matter.

Science has clearly spoken that at least one person, at least one unique individual human being, begins to live at the moment of conception.

Despite his intelligence, Lagboltz has yet to come even close to a refutation, and when I too have pressed him directly to respond to questions that are at the heart of the matter, he responds with silence.

Clearly, as I review this thread, no one has made a rational scientific attempt to show that at least one person, at least one unique individual human being, does not begin to live at the moment of conception.

That is because the science of the opening post is air-tight.

The scientifically revealed existence and personhood of the newly conceived has therefore made the strongest case that the newly conceived is endowed with the right to life from conception.

I believe the matter to be settled.

 

[Lagboltz]

Now that I finished my little essay, I will get back to Palerider.

Question. Would you accept an argument of this nature against you in a court of law if your life were in the balance?

Yes.

Would you allow such unprovable, unsubstantiated musings from a prosecution that wanted to see you executed?

Are you saying that an embryo with nervous system of 10,000 neurons is sentient? OK. lets make it zero neurons. Nobody should have trouble agreeing that the statement, "a human embryo with no neurons cannot be sentient" is unprovable or unsubstantiated.

Personaly, I don't believe that you would accept such abstract, and etherical arguments against you in court if it were your life that was subject to forfiet, and if you were not able to understand that your life were in the balance, no rational and qualified legal council would allow such musings to be entered into evidence against his client.

The argument that I'm now giving, "a human embryo with no neurons cannot be sentient" is so minimal and self evident, I would accept it in a court applied to me. It is not abstract. It can and has been measured.

I don't believe you have any desire to "fix" anything. If a murder is running rampant in your neighborhood killing victim after victim after victim, do you ask the police to examine the sociological and psychological reasons that this maniac is killing and to address to society the reasons and ask society to change its ways so this poor maniac doesn't feel the need to kill and kill and kill. Or do you demand that the police add additional patrols and do what ever is necessary to catch this guy and put an end to his killing spree?

I would, of course do the latter.

This isn't an abstract problem subject to sociological examinations. Actual human beings are being killed every day in their thousands

That is correct. It is not sociological examinations. It is a medical assessment with a well defined metric.

My suspicion is that you, like all pro choicers fully realize that you aren't going to be killed so then it isn't really such a big deal. The same attitute can be attributed to those who perhaps didn't like slavery and would never own one of thier own, but since they were not black, there was really no danger to themselves so an attitute of complacent complicity suited them just fine. Ditto for those who weren't gypsys in russia who were being murdered in their millions, or jews in hitler's germany, or among any persecuted group you care to name throughout history.

My prevailing attitude was in my little essay - a matter of survival of the race with the necessity of a concept of social triage looming.

The problem is that human beings are being legally killed by the millions. The solution is to outlaw the killing.

I would amend "human beings" to "non-sentient embryos."

Once more, if it were your life on the line, would you accept philosophical musings on topics like the nature of guilt or innocence, or the nature of rights (since sentience isn't a philosophical concept that you need worry about being used against you) to be entered into the record as evidence against you?

Punishments due to philosophical musings of course are scary, like burning witches, etc. But, once more, the idea of sentience without a nervous system is not a philosophical realm. It has a hard scientific measure.

I believe I answered the rest of your post by my previous post.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

No actual rebuttal huh? Not to worry. None was really expected. Especially not from you.

Thanks, Pale, it's a trick I learned from you: keep everyone's expectations low and it's easier to meet them.

I don't know, Pale, you got a lot to say, but somehow it seems vague on substance--maybe it's just because I don't agree with you about the intrinsic value of women's ability to make choices for their own bodies.

 

[palerider]

Yes.

To that, I will flatly call you either a liar, or insane. No one in their right mind would accept philosophical musings to be entered into evidence against them if their lives were on the line. Certainly no legal council would allow it.

Are you saying that an embryo with nervous system of 10,000 neurons is sentient? OK. lets make it zero neurons. Nobody should have trouble agreeing that the statement, "a human embryo with no neurons cannot be sentient" is unprovable or unsubstantiated.

You have yet to prove that sentience is what makes a human being a human being. Musing that sentience is what makes us human is like entering musings on guilt and innocence and whether anyone is truely innocent into evidence against you in a court of law. Unless you can prove that sentience is what makes you a human being, it is nothing more than a philosophical speculation and a speculation isn't good enough grounds to deny a human being their most basic right.

The argument that I'm now giving, "a human embryo with no neurons cannot be sentient" is so minimal and self evident, I would accept it in a court applied to me. It is not abstract. It can and has been measured.

What you are not doing, and haven't done is prove that sentience is what makes a human being a human being. Without proof, what good is the speculation? You are making an assumption that you can't prove and resting your argument upon it.

I would, of course do the latter.

Of course, because in such an instance, your own life is in danger and why the killer is killing is not nearly as important as stopping him.

That is correct. It is not sociological examinations. It is a medical assessment with a well defined metric.

I am afraid that I don't know what you are getting at here. Elaborate.

My prevailing attitude was in my little essay - a matter of survival of the race with the necessity of a concept of social triage looming.

Prove it. Prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. That is, after all, the standard we require before allowing state sanctioned killing.

I would amend "human beings" to "non-sentient embryos."

Of course you would. But the two are one in the same. Unless, of course, you can prove otherwise. Can you?

Punishments due to philosophical musings of course are scary, like burning witches, etc. But, once more, the idea of sentience without a nervous system is not a philosophical realm. It has a hard scientific measure.

But you have thus far not made any headway at all at proving that we are not human beings until we have a functioning nervous system. I have provided plenty of credible materials that state explicitly that we are human beings from the time we are concieved. If this was in doubt, or even reasonablly questioned, don't you think that you could find some credible materials to offer up as a challenge?

Your argument is no more and no less than a logical fallacy. You are begging the question and simply assuming that sentience is a valid measure by which to determine whether you are talking about human beings or potential human beings. My argument on the other hand depends entirely on what I can provide credible materials to support. I don't assume anything.

This is, after all, a matter of life and death and lacking any credible materials from you to challenge the information I have already provided, I would say that I have proved my case beyond any reasonable doubt. After all, you have provided nothing by way of credible materials to put any part of my argument into doubt.

I believe I answered the rest of your post by my previous post.

You have answered, but not advanced your argument even a nanometer.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Perhaps you would like to point out a problem in the US, or the world for that matter that is so large that 40 millon dead here, or over a billion dead throughout the world is just a small facet in comparison.

It is very easy to make blithe comments, even when you want to believe them. Rationally defending those comments is an entirely different thing.

It's also easy to blithely ignore what we would do with 40 million unwanted children in a system that can't care for the ones already here.

It's also easy to blithely sweep away the right of women to control their own bodies simply because you don't like what they do. It's not you who has to birth and care for the unwanted children.

It's also easy to blithely ignore the millions of suffering, starving, homeless people already on this planet and campaign for the lives of embryos because it costs you nothing. If you were to get involved in saving the people already here you might have to part with some of your money. I have to admit that I don't trust your selective indignation.

 

[palerider]

Thanks, Pale, it's a trick I learned from you: keep everyone's expectations low and it's easier to meet them.

I don't know, Pale, you got a lot to say, but somehow it seems vague on substance--maybe it's just because I don't agree with you about the intrinsic value of women's ability to make choices for their own bodies.

Once again. It isn't the woman's body that I am concerned with. That argument is a logical fallacy. You beg the question and simply assume that there is only one individual in the equation making a medical decison like having an ingrown toenail removed. The fact is that what you call a medical decision is, in reality, one human being deciding to kill another. Can you or can you not make a rational argument in support of allowing one indivual to kill another with no judicial review and no legal consequences? The whole issue comes down to the pro choice side making a rational argument to support that position.

As to substance, take a look back through my arguments. I am the one who provides reference to credible medical science. I am the one who provides reference to the law and its application to the abortion question. In fact, I am the one who actually substantiates every part of my argument. It is you and yours whose arguments lack substance and substantiation. Your entire argument is nothing more than a presentation of your opinion.

 

[palerider]

It's also easy to blithely ignore what we would do with 40 million unwanted children in a system that can't care for the ones already here.

Your right to live isn't based, or dependent upon being wanted. If that were true, you would logically have to be in favor of going about killing those post natals who we can identify as not wanted.

It's also easy to blithely sweep away the right of women to control their own bodies simply because you don't like what they do. It's not you who has to birth and care for the unwanted children.

Again, logical fallacy. It isn't the woman's body I am concerned with. It isn't the woman who is being killed as a matter of convenience.

It's also easy to blithely ignore the millions of suffering, starving, homeless people already on this planet and campaign for the lives of embryos because it costs you nothing. If you were to get involved in saving the people already here you might have to part with some of your money. I have to admit that I don't trust your selective indignation.

And none of the things you have mentioned is a rational argument supporting your position of allowing one human being to kill another human being for any or no reason without legal review and without legal consequence.

I didn't expect that you would be able to name a problem so great that 40 million dead and counting would pale in signifigance.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Once again. It isn't the woman's body that I am concerned with. That argument is a logical fallacy. You beg the question and simply assume that there is only one individual in the equation making a medical decison like having an ingrown toenail removed. The fact is that what you call a medical decision is, in reality, one human being deciding to kill another. Can you or can you not make a rational argument in support of allowing one indivual to kill another with no judicial review and no legal consequences? The whole issue comes down to the pro choice side making a rational argument to support that position.

As to substance, take a look back through my arguments. I am the one who provides reference to credible medical science. I am the one who provides reference to the law and its application to the abortion question. In fact, I am the one who actually substantiates every part of my argument. It is you and yours whose arguments lack substance and substantiation. Your entire argument is nothing more than a presentation of your opinion.

Your first sentence says it all, you are only concerned with one individual and you have chosen to deny the rights or interests of the other indvidual in the equation.

I'm not arguing with your science, I'm objecting to your single focus that denies the rights of another human being because YOU don't like the choices that person may make. I agree with you about the undesirability of abortion, but equally I favor women having the absolute right to contol their own bodies. Until the fetus is viable outside the woman's body she owns it and I have to give her the right to do with her body and its contents as she sees fit. Talk about Big Brother Government, what ever happened to self-responsibility? Until viability it is between God and the woman. I may hate it, but enslaving women will make the matter worse not better.

You wish to play God with half of the human race, I object to your presumption.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Your right to live isn't based, or dependent upon being wanted. If that were true, you would logically have to be in favor of going about killing those post natals who we can identify as not wanted.

Again, logical fallacy. It isn't the woman's body I am concerned with. It isn't the woman who is being killed as a matter of convenience.

And none of the things you have mentioned is a rational argument supporting your position of allowing one human being to kill another human being for any or no reason without legal review and without legal consequence.

I didn't expect that you would be able to name a problem so great that 40 million dead and counting would pale in signifigance.

The issues of child abuse and starvation both over-shadow the abortion death issue in sheer numbers.

It's not about logic, Pale, denying one life to secure another is about emotion. Our disagreement is one of definition, and it's an impasse. Why are only unborn lives so important to you? Why not the millions who live in desperation not worth even a moment of your time? Far more die of starvation and lack of clean water every year than by abortion--Hell, a lot of spontaneous abortions take place due to lack of adequate food, water, and medical care--why aren't those lives of value?

While I appreciate your respect for life, I have to reject your single-entity focus in light of all the other lives that are being destoyed each day.

 

[Chip]

The problem is that human beings are being legally killed by the millions. The solution is to outlaw the killing.

I would amend "human beings" to "non-sentient embryos."

As I essentially stated in the opening post of this thread, in this discussion, the psychology of us posters is, understandably, relevant and germane to the discussion.

Here Lagboltz responds to Palerider's statement by utilizing the pro-abortionist's minimization sophistry that employs the bias of ageism.

Rather than correctly accept "human beings" as the rationally solely required accurate relevant term in the matter, he erroneously appeals instead to a stage of development of a human being in an implied attempt to justify killing -- read murdering -- people at or before that stage of development.

The premise of his sophistry is that if a human being has not met his development criteria, then that person can be murdered because of it.

Though science has clearly spoken that a person begins at the moment of conception, which means that an embryo is a person, a human being, he attempts to deny the reality of it with appeal to the bias of ageism.

To further attempt to justify his bias, he adds the adjective "non-sentient", an adjective that science, in determining that at least one person, at least one unique individual human being, begins to live at the moment of conception, simply does not employ.

His goal thereby is two-fold: 1) to justify his sociological position of murderous abortion by convenience, and 2) to maintain a degree of emotional detachment to avoid feeling the painful guilt of the pro-abortionist position.

Indeed, his previous condemnation of emotion in the matter along with the absence of emotion with which he presents his bias-based sophistry is reminiscent of Joseph Mengele and his staff who experimented on live Jews in NAZI Germany during World War II -- they two needed to keep an emotional detachment from their victims in order to torture and murder them.

Mengele and his staff were simply so mentally centered that they were thereby unable to feel the horror of their atrocities, which is what allowed them to carry them out. They utilized ethnic bias to justify their claim that Jews weren't "really" human beings, and thus they could be experimented upon and murdered at will.

Similarly, the pro-abortionist needs to coldly deny through the use of sophistry the horror of his position.

Nothing short of major psychotherapy, if anything, will cause the advocator-perpetrator of heinous behaviors to feel the reality of that horror.

Likewise, pro-abortionists must remain detached from the realities that would cause them to feel and face the horror of their position.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

It's interesting to note that people who use the argument of "ageism" to decry early abortions are using "speciesism" when they do not accord other species an equal right to life. Nothing makes humans special except human's opinions of their own specialness.

 

[palerider]

Your first sentence says it all, you are only concerned with one individual and you have chosen to deny the rights or interests of the other indvidual in the equation.

Again, you are wrong. I understand perfectly that there are two individuals. A clash of rights exists between them. Whenever a clash of rights exists between individuals, the rights of the one must give way to the more fundamental right of the other. The right to live is the most fundamentalr right there is.

 

[palerider]

The issues of child abuse and starvation both over-shadow the abortion death issue in sheer numbers.

Show me a statistic proving that more than 40 million children have starved to death in this country in the past 40 years. Hell, show me evidence that 20 children have starved to death in this country.

Why are only unborn lives so important to you? [/quote]

As I have told you before, it isn't just their lives that are important. Their right to live, however, outweighs any right that a woman may invoke unless her life is in imminent danger due to the pregnancy.

 

[palerider]

It's interesting to note that people who use the argument of "ageism" to decry early abortions are using "speciesism" when they do not accord other species an equal right to life. Nothing makes humans special except human's opinions of their own specialness.

Feel free to show me evidentiary proof of an animal's right to life.

Also, your specism argument suggests that you will gladly forfiet your own right to life and protection of the law that gurantees it. Is that so? You reject your own right to live?