Welcome to the Utopia Forums! Register a new account
The current time is Sun Feb 17 00:41:41 PST 2019

Utopia Talk / Politics / Nekran
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Thu Jan 24 17:13:13
"I have already stated that a placenta is a perfect example of this. Your argument that we can differentiate a placenta from a fetus doesn't change that."

So a placenta isn't a zygote, it can never be confused with a human individual at any stage it can be differentiated. Yet it is the perfect exampel of, something that could be included in the definition of a human as defined by medicine? Do you want me to reference medical textbooks saying ”human life begins with the fusion of female and male gamates...”, ”human development begins with the fertilization of an egg...”?'

You need to explain this further.

Here is the "difference". When it is "unwanted" it a "clump fo cells" described in very cold and clinical terms in the literature, say the ones aimed at doctors doing abortions. When it is wanted everyone agrees it is a lovable precious thing worthy of protection. So if you read medical literature aimed at delivery doctors, it a completely different tune. The only change is in language, nthe biology does not as it isn't contingent on language.

I don't think the value of life or an individual is decided through semantics and the whims of the people responsbile for you. That is the seed for evil.
Pillz
Member
Thu Jan 24 17:52:19
What a long discussion about nothing.

Life is universally worth nothing unless it's considered a resource.

As far as fetuses go, they lack of of the characteristics that make them valuable resources. Arguments for the sanctity of life are weakest at the earliest and latest stages of life, because neither category has material worth
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Thu Jan 24 18:16:26
"Apart from all that, it's still very weird that you think the government should have more to say about what happens inside people's bodies than those people themselves."

You may not think it is murder, but if you did, wouldn't you want the government to stop it? You shouldn’t find that weird. Maybe I am not right, but I don't see that I am wrong. This is one of the things I have completely reasoned myself into only assuming one thing, that human lives have intrinsic value. Most of us agree that innocent lives in particular deserve protection. One principle, together with medical and biological definitions, and observations of the biological process to define when a new unique human individual is created. I am not sure I have a choice ending up where I do, it follows logically knowing what I know about biology.

None of my principles about human value are contingent on empirical facts or medical nomenclature. They can’t be, it must be defined in the absolute. I don’t for instance think sociologically defined genders in the upwards of 80 are relevant to the basic dignity and rights everyone should have. I find it dangerous that people try to redefine biology to prove empirically that we have the same value by “proving” we are all the same. Scientific findings can go whichever way, not necessarily the way you want them for the world to be good. A bit of a tangent, but it explains a bit more where I am coming from. It is one principle I can not undermine.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Thu Jan 24 18:22:02
Starting with a completely different principle, what pillz says is logical and rational given the _exact_ same medical and scientific facts that I use. The material value of zygots and old people are weak. I agree. I just don't think the value of life is material, it is intrinsic and inherent in being human. Africans, Jews, Muslims, Arctic goat herders, zygotes. They all deserves the same dignity and rights.

It is a principle I will not undermine.
Sam Adams
Member
Thu Jan 24 18:35:40
Does all life have the same value? Does a gutter junkie thats robs and murders have the same value as pasteur or einstein or darwin?
smart dude
Member
Thu Jan 24 22:14:27
Even more value, if you're a SJW.
Cherub Cow
Member
Thu Jan 24 22:40:57
[Nimatzo]: "killing a fertilized egg is murder"
[Nimatzo]: "Starting with the first principle and using medical definitions and observing the biological process, ultimately a zygote is a new PERSON and should have the same rights as other people."

This is highly problematic reasoning and not supported by scientific definitions; simply saying, "^Science^", does not mean that science defines person-hood as the zygote — it does not. All that it means for cells to be a zygote is that two sets of DNA have fused and have the instructions and initiator signals necessary to begin cell division. The zygote is a blueprint, not the final product; a map to the stars is not the stars themselves.

With that in mind, if the zygote is a person, then it shares person-hood with many other types of cells. Skin cells, for instance, have the ability to divide. Does this mean that science supports that skin cells have person-hood? No. "But they are *human* skin cells, surely each cell is an individual human ('person') just as the *human* zygote is akin to the *human* child?" No. "But skin cells have both copies of DNA fused and ready, surely it is a person?" No. And a fresh zygote cannot even express genes; it cannot transcribe nuclear genes, which means that it is not even using its two sets of parental DNA, it is simply replicating them, as the skin cell does the same; in its early stage, a zygote is following cell division instructions present in almost every other cell in the human body. The only replication difference is that zygotes halve their cytoplasm in each division. Does this mean that science defines person-hood as cell division with a progressive halving of cytoplasm? No. Science simply calls this "cleavage". "Ah! There it is! Then cells capable of cleavage must have person-hood!" No, science does not say that cleavage means person-hood. Enamel undergoes cleavage, so if you'd like the enamel of teeth to have person-hood, then feel free to push that argument forward despite its absurdity.

"Ah! But the zygote has the *potential* to form a human!" Biologically, a teratoma precursor, too, has that "potential" (i.e., "potential" means little at this stage). Teratomas can end up being sacs of teeth, hair, bones, and new blood flow. In both cases, material and signals must be made available for that potential to be realized. "Ah! But the zygote has its own internal/genetic material and unique (combined-DNA) instructions and can divide independently! This independence of cell division is person-hood!" Not exactly; many other cells can divide "independently" within egg-like environments before running into a resource wall. Similarly, the zygote can only divide into its resource wall before it demands resources from the host/mother, and it may not even divide successfully in order to make these resource demands. "Ah! But the zygote has *better* instructions for the formation of a human than does the teratoma!" Not necessarily. It is not even necessary to consider hideously-deformed and mentally retarded, *birthed* children as examples; the body discards plenty of zygotes before moving forward — upwards of 2/3 of zygotes may be terminated. Why? Plenty of reasons: the zygote's failure to replicate (which itself includes: not enough mitosis promoting factor (MPF), mRNA in the zygote cytoplasm fails to encode cyclin B, protein deficiencies exist in the yolk, etc.), the zygote has damaged DNA, the zygote has missing DNA, the zygote formed of resource-deficient egg and/or sperm, the zygote ended up with too many or not enough chromosomes, the zygote fails to initiate gastrulation, another zygote has been changing the signal chemistry such that the other zygotes have no further activation signals (maybe because this zygote too is dysfunctional, or this zygote has already begun dividing and is eliminating its competition), etc... In short, the zygote must go through a ringer of checks before it is even permitted additional resources that bring it to the next stage, and despite having an egg (semi-"self-determining") environment, it may fail within this environment before it can even make further requests of the mother's body.

So should all zygotes be considered "persons" and protected by the body? In biology (for the body), the answer is "no," because that's how you get further replication errors which can mean tumor formation and cancer. Moving forward with dysfunctional zygotes can also mean zygotes that differentiate into teratoma-like structures that have human-differentiated cells such as hair, skin, and teeth but no peripheral nervous system (PNS), heart, or brain. Further down the line, the zygote can also implant in places outside the uterus, meaning a potentially life-threatening ectopic pregnancy. Is that "person" precious and meant to be protected? The body says, "no," via its control mechanisms; it undergoes trauma and tries to purge that pregnancy so that the mother's body can survive. And sure, "Every generation of medtech moves [the ability to sustain a fetus outside a womb] closer to conception" (Nimatzo, "Mass darwin award ceremony" thread), so what if people decided against the checks of the body and attempted to save these discarded zygotes? Again, the result would be tumor-like growths and cell groupings which cannot live on their own but which admittedly could indeed be kept alive in a lab indefinitely — as cancer ("Cancer is immortal? Cancer is nature perfected! Yes! Let's do that! Save cancer!" ... Henrietta Lacks' cancer line certainly looks good after 68 years outside the body). It can also result in grown humans with developmental issues that we haven't even seen before — oddities that would terrify the carnival freaks themselves. So even if technology permits this kind of disturbing morality of saving zygotes, it would probably (also) have to do the same functions as the body: perform its own termination steps to discard faulty embryonic stages.

..
[Nimatzo]: "Do you want me to reference medical textbooks saying ”human life begins with the fusion of female and male gamates...”, ”human development begins with the fertilization of an egg...”?'"

Those texts would be problematic, to say the least — *if* they say "person" and not just a "being". What is the true beginning of a "person"? Is it this simple cell which only has instructions to divide? By biological definitions, no. No carefully-worded upper-division text will say that. The best you'd get is a text that says that a human *being* has been given the *potential* to form via a zygote (or — if not "potential" — a zygote which can successfully divide within the egg wall before hitting its resource limit and demanding implantation) but *not* that a human *person* exists now via the formation of the zygote.

..
This should now segue to clarifying this issue:

[Nimatzo]: "Two sets of issues:
1. The right to self determination and bodily integrity
2. The status of a human fetus as a live human and the sanctity of life and the fetus right to bodily integrity.
come into conflict with abortion."

As I went into with a list of potential zygote failure points, the zygote has very little self-determination and bodily integrity in its early stages; all it can do is divide, and division may be stopped at many points via the zygote's own replication failures (it may die on its own before it even has a chance to implant). Once a successful zygote matures into its resource limit (particularly its limited amount of yolk), it must implant on the uterine wall in order to survive further — i.e., its independence was short-lived, confined to a few cell divisions. While the implanted egg is not *literally* a "parasite", in many ways it acts as one: it makes big demands of the mother's body. This dependence is fine for the growth of a new life, but the checks continue (a flow chart of "continue development" or "terminate the egg and purge the uterine lining"). This is part of progressing phases of energy investment: the body continues to allocate resources, but if the resources become too much, if DNA replication mistakes are detected by either body, or if any number of similar errors occur, then the pregnancy can still be terminated (miscarriage or stillbirth).

So, similar to the questions of the body or technology being able to save the zygote, should the body or technology save a miscarriage or stillbirth? Biology gave its answer: "no." Certainly this can be due to external reasons such as fetal alcohol syndrome (FAS) due to a mother's excessive alcohol consumption, but the external aside for the moment, in the case of termination following implantation, each body — not just the mother's — is preventing investment in a growth which likely will not survive further. It's that list again: life-threatening ectopic pregnancies, chromosome issues, implantation issues which cause bleeding (and would kill both mother and egg), DNA replication failures which would cause cancer, immune system failures, etc... And should science save these failures? Sometimes it does (e.g., raising a immunodeficient child in a "bubble"), but the general rule is that the earlier a stillbirth or miscarriage is saved by technology, the more likely the growth is to die on the outside or turn out to have severe brain damage, immune issues, or a long list of further energy-intensive rescue operations.

..
[Nimatzo]: "If a fetus poses a serious threat to the life of the mother, I believe the position to end it is morally defensible"

It's good to note, then, that such "serious threat[s]" and the decision to end a fetus do not necessarily come out of "fear", so there's no need to pretend that only "stronger ... more mature" people will decide to save a pregnancy. A stillbirth or miscarriage shows that the mother's body does not want to (or cannot) commit excess energy to saving a life that cannot survive even its early stages of development much less a life that will jeopardize the mother's life in an after-birth situation. It's not much of an extension, then, to realize practically that on a cultural or cognitive level a mother can recognize threats awaiting mother and/or child should a child be brought to term. A grown mother has successfully survived the millions of developmental checks necessary for her own survival and can likely find better opportunity for later births (to a biological point, of course), but a developing egg has not even passed its first checks and may not even be viable for offering protection, for resource-gathering, and for child-rearing until it reaches 5-12 years old. The mind, like the body, puts its own checks on birth: can the child survive and be healthy, or will it be some doomed genetic failure which requires more resources for its survival than even a healthy body? For me, that's easy: if it's a choice, save the person who has received higher investment and has a higher capability in competition (biologically or behaviorally), not the uncertain "potential".
hood
Member
Fri Jan 25 00:06:17
Brb, setting up a zygote suicide prevention hotline.
jergul
large member
Fri Jan 25 01:39:09
In short: It is incompatible with science to think impregnation human with full rights when biology will terminate the majority before term.
McKobb
Member
Fri Jan 25 03:37:57
What does all this mean evolutionarily? The more conservative cultures (low birth rates) will be swallowed by more fertile cultures, whom may or may not thank them for all the fish.
murder
Member
Fri Jan 25 09:04:16

Nekran ... Nimatzo

Nimatzo ... Nekran


Now I'm as funny as Letterman. :o)

murder
Member
Fri Jan 25 09:13:16

"Does all life have the same value? Does a gutter junkie thats robs and murders have the same value as pasteur or einstein or darwin?"

The fact that he's a junkie is neither here nor there. Being a dirtball on the other hand means that he has negative social value.

Clearly all life doesn't have the same value unless you're looking at it from a religious point of view.

murder
Member
Fri Jan 25 09:17:32

btw abortion is most definitely murder. But it's simply the cost of individual freedom.

swordtail
Anarchist Prime
Fri Jan 25 09:34:13
"btw abortion is most definitely murder"

murder just doxxed himself!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Nekran
Member
Sat Jan 26 02:34:47
That was a great post, CC.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Sun Jan 27 08:44:21
CC

First a point of order. When I say a zygote, embryo, fetus, toddler, adult these are all human, the word “human” is a noun. You repeatedly mix this usage of the noun “human” with human cells an adjective. The day when school you in grammar ;-)

Apart from the grammatical confusion, it is biologically nonsense. A fertilized egg is a new unique lifeform with a new set of DNA that didn't previously exist.

>>This is highly problematic reasoning and not supported by scientific definitions; simply saying, "^Science^", does not mean that science defines person-hood as the zygote<<

What is and isn't deserving of personhood is a legal and ethical matter. What you quote was *me* reaching an ethical positions from a first principle (human life has intrinsic value) together with observations of the biological process (science) to establish when a human individual comes into being. The science on that is clear and has been for over a 100 years. A human comes into being with the fertilization of an egg and ends with death.

I did not claim that science can establish what kind of life deserves protection, only that it can has defined what is and isn’t human, noun and adjective and when a new human individual comes into existence.

>>And a fresh zygote cannot even express genes; it cannot transcribe nuclear genes, which means that it is not even using its two sets of parental DNA<<

You are correct, it takes a full hour for the fertilized egg to start gene expression or the 14th division cycle. I have no idea where you think this will lead. The fetus is dependent on the mother or medical attention if premature, or it will die. Besides that a wide range of humans are incapable of certain things. Is the value of life then contingent on what your body can do, in this case at that specific time in your life? People who can not produce insulin or have even worse disease that require constant supervision and medical attention. You have an accident and you are dependent on other directing critical bodily functions for a period.

"teratomas"
Nouns and adjectives. All human cells are not new human individuals, only fertilized eggs are. Amputating a wart, a tumor or a diseased limb isn't the same thing as ending a new human life. If you kill the person when doing that procedure, objectively something went wrong. It is the reverse with an abortion.

Teratomas are neither a new human (noun) nor do they have the potential to become one. All cells are not new humans, only fertilized eggs are.

"he body discards plenty of zygotes before moving forward — upwards of 2/3 of zygotes may be terminated. Why?"

We can establish that a life can end at any time through various natural and unnatural ways during its' life cycle.

>>the zygote has damaged DNA, the zygote has missing DNA, the zygote formed of resource-deficient egg and/or sperm, the zygote ended up with too many<<

The question at the end of the paragraph from my POV was, should medicine try to repair and help damaged humans? Yes. But we can, so people die and we generally think this is a bad thing. We try to help and save damaged people to the best of our ability.

>>the result would be tumor-like growths and cell groupings which cannot live on their own but which admittedly could indeed be kept alive in a lab indefinitely — as cancer ("Cancer is immortal? Cancer is nature perfected<<

Tumors and cancers are not humans. A human being in gestation (or to get fancy intrauterine life) phase is not a cancer or a tumor. None of these things are surprising or confusing to differentiate in medicine and biology.

>>Henrietta Lacks' cancer line certainly looks good after 68 years outside the body)<<

Pretty neat, we worked with her cells in the lab when I was in university. Her cells exist all over the world in labs. This is when I learned about telomeres and telomerase and their importance for cell division and preventing cell death or in the worst case cancerous cells.

>>*if* they say "person" and not just a "being"<<

They say exactly what I quote, the question I was trying to establish for my science denying friends :P was what science says about the formation of human life. Conception, the fusing of gametes, a fertilized egg. Some definitions had to be laid down, what is “life”, what is a human life, when does a human life begin. The challenge was made that it could not be defined in such a way where it did not include other cells that are human cells. You yourself have written a response largely based on the confusion between an adjective and a noun repeatedly mixing other human cells with The human cell that is the starting point for a new human being.

>>So, similar to the questions of the body or technology being able to save the zygote, should the body or technology save a miscarriage or stillbirth? Biology gave its answer: "no.”<<

I will go with yes, medicine should try to save and repair damaged human beings. I insist in fact.

>>It's good to note, then, that such "serious threat[s]" and the decision to end a fetus do not necessarily come out of "fear", so there's no need to pretend that only "stronger ... more mature" people will decide to save a pregnancy.<<

Not what I said or meant. I think aware of risks (it does have risks) is usually called being STUPID, being stupid doesn’t make you more “mature” or having a higher tolerance towards risks or fear. However overcoming fears is a maturing (growing) experience. It is specifically about overcoming fears.

>>A stillbirth or miscarriage shows that the mother's body does not want to (or cannot) commit excess energy to saving a life that cannot survive even its early stages of development much less a life that will jeopardize the mother's life in an after-birth situation.<<

Life can end at any stage, it is horrible and I believe that medicine should keep doing its’ job and work on more and better ways of saving and repairing.

I read everything, I did not answer every time you repeated the same thing, but you literally did not bring up anything that either was not contained in the sets of arguments brought up in the other thread or that I did not literally answer. You included more cells and more bodily functions missing, you even brought up the parasite argument, not literally, just figuratively :)

Human life starts with the fertilization of an egg. Human life can end at any time from the point that it is created. I believe human life has intrinsic value.

If I missed something critical please point it out.

Nekran
Since you didn’t answer.
A Human placenta is a temporary organ, that contains both the fetus DNA and the mothers. You agree we can differentiate it from the fetus. Good. The fetus needs the placenta to survive during gestation. It isn’t the fetus, it isn’t a new human life, but a clump of cells worth protecting like your heart, brain or lungs. These are not human beings, but human beings need them to survive. Or let’s say the series of tubes and machines that a person in a coma or after a serious injury needs to survive for a period. To make a mechanical comparison.
*****

What you guys are doing is useless and futile. You are trying to subvert the very clear cut science regarding what a human being is in the embryonic stage and what it isn’t. Now science may change, even this science _could_ change, like evolutionary theory could end up being wrong, or heliocentrism, it is highly unlikely. Now I get why you are doing it, because I assume you are all decent people who start with the same principle as I, that human life has intrinsic value that isn’t contingent on their material worth it has.

Human life starts with the fertilization of an egg and then ends with death. A human life isn’t a tumor, cancer, skin cells, sperms or eggs. These scientific facts are independent of the discussion in society about when to give a new human life legal personhood and protection.

The problem is that this legal protection is given and revoked based on if your mother wants you or not. If a woman has a miscarriage because of someone else’s actions, we would all (if not the legally, though many place would view this as murder) think that person killed someone. An expected child.

I do not think this is morally coherent. That unless you are wanted and because you are impossibly weak and have no voice to speak then the value of your life is either the most precious thing or “just a clump of cells” like teratomas.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Sun Jan 27 09:14:19
Alot of people seem oblivious to how helpless and incomplete newborns are. They will die within days if you do not feed them. And for the first few weeks they are basically like ”worms”, to use a de-humanizing word. They just squiggle, whine and squirt shit and piss.

My son is 16 months now and to call him ”human” in the social/cultural sense of the word (we all probably think about when define ”human”) would be an exaggeration. He is selfish, stupid, has no understanding of anything and zero patience and empathy. He is much worse than a dog by every standard of ”decent human behavior”. Why doesn’t any think the development of the mind and basic human emotions is a good cut off point for abortion? He doesn’t understand death or really anything. He, while not a literal parasite, acts and behaves like one, me and my wife are basically slaves. His death could be painless. He is, much like a cancer tumor, growing and requiring more and more resources every day and I am globally required to work myself to death if needed to provide for him. Cancer.

Why can’t we abort him?
Rugian
Member
Sun Jan 27 09:43:19
"Why can’t we abort him?"

This is not an argument you want to make with these sociopaths. If they place no value on life in the womb, why would they place any more value on life outside of it?

http://jme.bmj.com/content/39/5/261.full
jergul
large member
Sun Jan 27 10:12:54
Nimi
You can get rid of him up at any time. There might even be a hot-line you can call, but your local police office should have on duty child services 24/7 and they will accept immediate delivery.

Or in your terms. You have every moral right to get rid of him. Some people might frown, but fuck them.

jergul
large member
Sun Jan 27 10:18:46
When humanity starts is sort of a dead-end discussion as I have mentioned earlier.

Fact of the matter is that you have the moral right to demand that anyone or any part of anyone be removed from inside your body at any time at all.

There is no inherent human value without that moral right.
hood
Member
Sun Jan 27 17:54:23
"sociopaths"

Somehow, I don't think a conservative wants to bring up this term, like ever.
jergul
large member
Sun Jan 27 19:20:17
Nekran
I realize the discussion was about "To what degree is the prenatal condition a human being", but nimi moved the goal posts to "I conclude fully human and therefore, abortion is morally wrong".

Even if he had established humanity from conception, it would still not follow that abortion is morally wrong.

Hood
To be fair, conservatives could use the term on medals and watches they award each other for services rendered.

I would have no objection to that.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Mon Jan 28 04:00:55
One correction.
It didn’t sound right when I read it after posting, because cell cleavage does not occur so rapidly in humans. So I fact checked, but the forum went dark.

The human zygotes genome is activated between the 2-4 cell stage, which is obviously more than 1 hour, more like 2-3 days.

So where did I get 14th cycle and 1 hour? I googled and apparently fruit flies. I have had a thing for fruit flies since I cultivated them many many years ago. Not trivial to mix flies with humans biologically speaking, but also not relevant for my argument on that specific point.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Mon Jan 28 04:08:17
>>I conclude fully human and therefore, abortion is morally wrong".<<

That isn’t moving the goal post you imbecile. That is my position. Which has been slightly fleshed out talking to Nekran.

To reduce to confusion and perception of goal post moving.

1. Human life has intrinsic value. (Moral principle)
2. A fetus is a human life. (Science)
3. Taking a human life is (generally) wrong. (Law, ethic)
4. Therefor abortion is (generally) wrong. (Ethical conclusion regarding abortion)
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Mon Jan 28 06:23:23
>>You can get rid of him up at any time. There might even be a hot-line you can call, but your local police office should have on duty child services 24/7 and they will accept immediate delivery.<<

Which is reasonable, no one is killed. I would not object to giving your embryo up for adoption.
jergul
large member
Mon Jan 28 06:44:37
Nimi
You moved the goal posts right past an individual's right to self-determination, self-integrity, and privacy.

It is not ok to have things inside another person's body if they do not want them there.

Any moral position that thinks that is ok, is not a moral position at all.

You should start crowdfunding medical interventions that do not terminate the fetus.

Women have the right not to host. What happens to whatever is expelled is up to society to figure out.

Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Mon Jan 28 07:30:39
I changed my opinion on one thing after Nekran poked at what I said. I thanked him, this is the finest outcome of a conversation.

I said I do not think abortions are morally defensible from the start (and have yet to change my mind), it is what started this discussion. Apart from the exceptions you and I talked about I don’t believe that it is. I included ”generally” in my last summary because I am open to there being other good reasons (besides self defense) for killing humans. It isn’t clear to me that there are, but I am open.
jergul
large member
Mon Jan 28 07:33:52
Nimi
You are ok with someone having a dick up your ass that you don't want there?

Or would you invoke self-defence based on the principles of self-determination, self-integrity, and/or privacy?
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Mon Jan 28 08:28:11
A pregnancy is not like getting raped. Just like a fetus isn’t a tumor. But please keep making these stupid comparisons.
jergul
large member
Mon Jan 28 08:41:30
Nimi
Rape? Its just something more or less harmless inside your body that you don't want there.

What is your moral right to remove it based on philosophically?

In your opinion.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Mon Jan 28 10:38:25
In my opinion as a matter of principle when I see that people care so much they it makes them go retarded I let them have the last word and am done with the conversation.
jergul
large member
Mon Jan 28 16:39:10
Nimi
What can I say? Teaching is a calling.

Integrity is the fundamental tenant of Western Philosophy. It is possible to imagine surrogates of self (for example God, Polis, Honour, Property) in an integrity of self analysis.

Without integrity of self, there is no value to any human life including undeveloped variants.

Such is the argument. You can freely disagree, but you should be able to see that a woman's right to the integrity of self is a morally defensible philosophical position.

TJ
Member
Mon Jan 28 17:08:15
Moral integrity: Where does it begin and where does it end? Philosophically and fundamentally of course.

That is a rabbit hole question. I'll wait with a snare to trap the rabbit when it exits its entrance.
Forwyn
Member
Mon Jan 28 17:36:00
"Somehow, I don't think a conservative wants to bring up this term, like ever."

"gubmint is altruistic"
jergul
large member
Mon Jan 28 18:50:41
TJ
Does it not follow that it begins and ends within the integrity of self (or a surrogate for self)?

I suspect our main (and only?) disagreement would rest in the distinction between "surrogate for self" and "extension of self"

Property is just like stuff, man :-).
TJ
Member
Mon Jan 28 19:49:33
Property is deep into the hole. Still waiting for the rabbit to show its little head. But...

I'm pro-life and pro-law at the same time, not exactly pro-choice.

Caesar sacrifice with a pointing finger. I consider it fortunate not to be the ruler over governmental legislation. I'm firm when it comes to individual sovereignty depending circumstances.

If a woman wants to take a frontal crap dispensing what they consider waste, so be it, because odds are attitudes determine development.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Tue Jan 29 01:15:56
TJ
It depends on what you are thinking of as beginning and ending. If it is a human life, then I do not see that it can be a philosophical question. Personhood and legal protection, I would agree are moral and in extension ethical questions.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Tue Jan 29 01:18:51
Right ok.. ”moral integrity” :) quick reading
jergul
large member
Tue Jan 29 04:35:39
TJ
I am also pro-life. I am just more pro-integrity-of-self.

We are not really fortunate to have constitutions that protect us from rulers over government regulations.

Constitutional rights are hard fought and hard protected. So are our due.

I too would be a terrible despot.
TJ
Member
Tue Jan 29 10:00:09
As it turns out the rabbit had another opening so
the little critter escaped. Its a complicated world and a great day for the rabbit.
Cherub Cow
Member
Wed Jan 30 03:58:59
[Nimatzo]: "A fertilized egg is a new unique lifeform with a new set of DNA that didn't previously exist.

Guess what a teratoma is? Guess what cancer is? All of these (fertilized egg, teratoma, cancer) have unique DNA which did not exist until they newly existed within the host body. Cancer has DNA which is perhaps more like the "host" because, by Knudson hypothesis, cancer is normal ("host") DNA that has taken on multiple DNA mutations but still has DNA that is — let's say (semi-fictionally) — 99.99% similar with the DNA in cells surrounding it. In the case of chromothripsis, even greater DNA change has occurred where in some cases an entire chromosome has been genetically rearranged, so, again semi-fictionally, about 99.94% similarity with "host" DNA. So again, like the point I made above with skin cells: "Ah! a unique human being!! Protect it!" At the peril of the host, surely. And would it interest you to know that many *healthy* cells within the body exhibit similar characteristics? Skin cells, for instance again, may actually have different DNA than heart cells. "Ah! a unique human being!! Protect it!" That is, it is an old error that all non-cancerous cells in the body have the same DNA; often the DNA drifts with age or common replication errors. Would you say that each section of the body that has produced new DNA (a categorically common condition within nearly all humans) is [a] new human life?

So we now know that the uniqueness of a zygote is not limited to the zygote (that was a definition error which failed to account for similarly unique human cells). So just *how* unique would you insist? More than 2 or 3 base pairs? 95% DNA similarity to host? 90%? Where's the cutoff? 52%? Hmm, 52% could be rough. This can make children with Beckwith–Wiedemann syndrome, who happen to be afflicted with all kinds of disorders and who are hundreds of times more likely to develop cancer than healthy individuals. But, okay, they can go to term and a painful life is still life, so 52%! Not 53%, though, right?

..
[Nimatzo]: "All human cells are not new human individuals, only fertilized eggs are ... Teratomas are neither a new human (noun) nor do they have the potential to become one. All cells are not new humans, only fertilized eggs are ... A human life isn’t a tumor, cancer, skin cells, sperms or eggs"
[Nimatzo]: "You yourself have written a response largely based on the confusion between an adjective and a noun repeatedly mixing other human cells with The human cell that is the starting point for a new human being."

The belief in a unified noun state is the same mistake that poorly-worded texts make:
• [a human] *presupposed* to properly follow all growth markers versus
• newly-configured, fertilized [human cells] which must still undergo rigorous checks for further development.

You arrived at philosophy in a mistaken definition; it's a difference between Plato and Heraclitus, and in practice, biology reflects Heraclitus. For Plato, the unity is assumed from the outset: it is [a human]. For Heraclitus, there is never unity except the unity imposed by heuristic, shortcut-seeking minds, instead: it is [human], never [a human], because human-ness is constant change. If going by Plato, one could make the mistake of considering a discrete human life as being [zygote to old person], which is an error of creeping determinism whereby the zygote is assumed to be singularly the path to old age, when in reality/Heraclitus the zygote is as much a becoming to old age as a path to cancer, a premature stop codon, an ectopic pregnancy, or various replication errors. (And statistically, a zygote is *less* a path to old age than it is to its many failures and self-imposed deaths, so maybe Plato would say, "[a death] is zygote to apoptosis," and would hope to ignore the unity-defying overlap between [a death] and [a human].) So, again, an assumption of predetermination is a mistake that no good textbook would make. Texts will typically show what happens when everything goes right from a perspective of evolutionary survivability ("[zygote to birth]"), before showing how many trillions of ways things do not work like that — how many evolutionary branches became biological discard.

And to look closer at the incorrect statement, "Teratomas are neither a new human (noun) nor do they have the potential to become one"...

Another reason that it is incorrect to believe that zygotes are unique nouns which can alone be [a human] distinct from other cell types is that, from a technological perspective, via cloning [a human] can be created from *any* cell's DNA. That includes teratomas. And can teratoma DNA be extracted to make *unique*, combined DNA? Yep. One way would be to take DNA from a male germ-line teratoma, DNA from a female germ-line teratoma, introduce them to blank egg and sperm, fertilize, surrogate, and there you go: an observation of a process has (apparently) shown that all DNA has intrinsic value.

..
[Nimatzo]: "*me* reaching an ethical positions from a first principle (human life has intrinsic value) together with observations of the biological process (science) to establish when a human individual comes into being."

I hope the above has now shown the flaws in this logic. Science does not declare a unity in the zygote (the zygote is not [a human], it is fertilized [human] cells), so giving the zygote an intrinsic value ignores the zygote's actual processes. It is a value judgement based on a flawed view of biology. Biology is a becoming, not a thing that has become.

..
[Nimatzo]: "You are correct, it takes [time] for the fertilized egg to start gene expression ... I have no idea where you think this will lead"

My point in following the replication pitfalls was that the zygote is not a particularly captivating start point: "The zygote is a blueprint, not the final product; a map to the stars is not the stars themselves." Its uniqueness is in its DNA, and the zygote does not even start expressing its DNA until cells begin differentiating, at which point it is a morula, not a zygote. And again to my point about energy investment, the concept of a unity becomes more believable as more success points have passed. A morula may differentiate via its unique DNA, but until it becomes a blastocyst and successfully implants, that unique DNA hasn't even proven that it can be viable and all differentiation is still very basic (still no complex organs or development which can phenotypically be differentiated from other humans in such a way which can be considered unique). This logic typically continues to landmark moments of development, like a brain and PNS — higher degrees of complexity achieved. Biology, not text-book writing, works on these energy investment pathways, not on false unities.

..
[Nimatzo]: "Is the value of life then contingent on what your body can do, in this case at that specific time in your life?"

If a differentiating cell fails a developmental checkpoint and repair mechanisms fail, cell death is activated. Well-governed complexity requires these DNA error protection steps. Biology values life in terms of successful replication, not in terms of unsurvivable cells that shed with the uterine lining. The more complex the developing life, the more energy it's worth to support it. If you want biology to value its failure pathways, you ask it to support its own overall self-destruction because a death pathway becomes indistinguishable from a replication pathway.

..
[Nimatzo]: "Not what I said or meant. I think aware of risks (it does have risks) is usually called being STUPID, being stupid doesn’t make you more “mature” or having a higher tolerance towards risks or fear. However overcoming fears is a maturing (growing) experience. It is specifically about overcoming fears."

Not really sure what's happening in this paragraph — too many unclear pronoun references and maybe some missing negations.

..
[Nimatzo]: "If a woman has a miscarriage because of someone else’s actions, we would all (if not the legally, though many place would view this as murder) think that person killed someone. An expected child."

No, we would not "all" think that a "person" was killed. People would want to know the things that I mentioned plus some more: how much complexity had the fetus achieved (how far along?)? How healthy was it likely to be? Was the mother in good health? Would the child have been afforded good economic mobility?... Miscarriage in particular typically means less than 5 months of development, which wouldn't be as compelling as 8 or 9 months. You can be assured that a kindly rich person with a 9-month pregnancy being kicked in the abdomen by a psychotic meth-head would garner more sympathy than a psychotic meth-head with a 1-month pregnancy being kicked in the abdomen by a terrified rich person. And, legality aside, "murder" and "person" would still be used along pro-choice/pro-life lines, with both pro-lifers and pro-choicers flexing their definitions to reflect that they are more okay with the second scenario.

..
[Nimatzo]: "Why doesn’t any think the development of the mind and basic human emotions is a good cut off point for abortion?"

I'm fine with termination up to about 10 years of age. It would be more complicated than going to the hospital, though. Like, people would send their Spartan 10-year-olds into the wilderness to fight wolves, and if the child returned then, okay, no abortion. ;p
jergul
large member
Wed Jan 30 04:42:56
ok, that was a nice post CC. It is however critically important that you not care about my opinion. I believe you follow that axiom religiously.
swordtail
Anarchist Prime
Wed Jan 30 09:06:05
"I'm fine with termination up to about 10 years of age. It would be more complicated than going to the hospital, though. Like, people would send their Spartan 10-year-olds into the wilderness to fight wolves, and if the child returned then, okay, no abortion. ;p "

yups!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Wed Jan 30 11:39:08
”Teratomas again”
Nowhere did I say the uniqueness in the DNA was the only qualifier. This is again the same argument. Twins may have the same DNA. Cancers and tumors are human cells behaving abnormally. A zygote cleaving is behaving normally and *still* not cancer. That it may turn cancerous is also covered in ”life may end at any point”.

The zygote, what it is, how it behaves and what it has in common with and how it differs from other cells is covered in embryology books. A zygote is not a tumor, just like eyes aren’t lungs, or an ear isn’t a sphincter (haha sphincter) even though they may have things in common. It is a category error and biologically speaking, nonsensical. These facts are not likely to change, and are independent of the discussion around the ethic of abortion and when humans should have legal protection.

You then take this misunderstanding of ”uniqueness” and biology/embryology and write 2 paragraphs about the uniqueness of mutated skin cells and the deep philosophical questions of epigenetic changes in DNA (I presume you are talking about).

These arguments my science denying friend are commonly described in UP speak as ”retarded”.
But I will go with ”silly”.

>>*presupposed* to properly follow all growth markers versus<<

This is the fourth time now. Life can end at any time from when it begins. Lots of things can go wrong. You may not make it past the ”growth marker” sexual maturity. So what? None of the markers makes you more human and they do not stop when you are an adult, your body keeps changing, until you die, although bot as rapidly

Again, for a fifth time, human life starts as a zygote and may end at any time. There is only one path. Life starts and then life ends. A zygote may turn cancerous and die, and adult may get cancer and die, fiery car crash etc and so on.

I don’t really care what people who didn’t have a clue about the modern understanding of biology had to say regarding biology. Which is all that we have discussed so far, and is the least interesting and questionable part of my position.

>>Cloning<<
Good point. A point the entire medical and scientific field is aware of. Yes there are huge moral and ethical questions yet to be resolved in cloning humans. Since none of my arguments are relying on ”potential” human, this is a word you introduced and I only added, that a cancer isn’t ”a potential human”, it isn’t a human at all potential or not. So, I do not see the point. Once a human life has been created, is when my concern begins.

>>My point in following the replication pitfalls was that the zygote is not a particularly captivating start point<<

And my point is that _when_ life begins is not contingent on what you or I think is ”captivating”.

>>not the final product<<

Do you think a new born baby is ”the final product”? Or even a 10 year old spartan child?

There is a hurdle here for you to overcome, for sure. When you imagine a human you imagine an ”adult”. But a human is a ”human” from the moment a human egg is fertilized by a human sperm. She remains a human as she is dying. Therefore the the entire cycle (no matter how long or short) from zygote throughout death is the human. You are not more ”human” in this sense than a teenager or a zygote.

>>Cell death (apoptosis)<<

You have and are using the naturalistic fallacy. Because biology decided you should die, therefor something something it is ok/good. If we are going by what ”biology values” then you have opened up quite the pandoras box of evil my friend. Which brings me back to the origins of this discussion. The moral failings of the pro-choice position and how it spills over (unwittingly maybe) to other domains.

Biology said you should die of breast cancer!
Biology decided you should be infertile!
Biology didn’t value your eyes so you can’t read traffic signs anymore! Or books!
Biology decided you should die in labor!

If you CC want biology to value its failure pathways, you ask it to support its own overall self-destruction because a death pathway becomes indistinguishable from a replication pathway!

Tadaaa!

I hope you see the insanity in this argument. Or perhaps not, but then this discussion about the science is pointless. You can simply start with whatever principle Pillz uses, and then grade the value of human life that society should put on it as you see fit.

*Just so you don’t spin another 3 paragraphs on this. Getting what we should value from biology not the same things as observing our biology and stating facts of when life begins. The reason I think it is superior is because it is unambiguous and resilient towards attempts of subversion (your own included), unlike say sociologically and culturally defined categories.

Correcting for language:
"Not what I said or meant. Not being aware of the risks (pregnancy does have risks) is usually called being STUPID or uninformed. Being stupid/uninformed doesn’t make you more “mature”. Having a higher tolerance towards risks or fear naturally or for whatever reason doesn’t put you in the position to overcome fear induced hurdles. However overcoming a fear that you actually have is a maturing (growing) experience. What I said is specifically about overcoming fears. You are talking to the guy who is morbidly afraid of >wasps<, who saw the full glory of my son being born. I am certainly not judging someone for being afraid of giving birth or view them as ”weak”. But I also don’t think killing human beings out of fear could ever be morally defensible. That is why I said they should see a shrink or get sterilized.

>>No, we would not "all" think that a "person" was killed.<<

Ok fair enough, I should know the crowd. I think most people would agree it wasn’t just a woman who got roughed up. Something else was lossed making it a more grievous incident. There is a gradient to how serious a lot people would view it, sure.

For the 6th time. Life begins as a zygote and can end at any time. The entirety of an individual human organism is defined by zygote -> old fart, but someone who died in their teen is still a human, a zygote discarded while in the fallopian tube, is still a human.

Now had I not been the guy who collected bugs when he was 7, froze down flies and tried to revive them, cultivated guppies and fruit flies in his teens and saw every David Attenborough documentary there was. If I had not taken a degree in biotech (i.e has done a lot of homework on this subject), It would have been difficult to argue against this salad of nonsense. But I am, and I did.
;)

To the extent that you are serious, it is worrisome and the crazy things you have said validate my fears. This question isn’t resolved, not even in Sweden where is has been pinned largely on ”viability”. Technology is now putting that into question, I am just ahead of the curve.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Wed Jan 30 11:46:01
I would say the cheer leading section in the thread is a good marker for how emotional this topic is for people. We rarely have cheer leader in UP.
TJ
Member
Wed Jan 30 12:07:33
Cheers!
jergul
large member
Wed Jan 30 12:18:57
Nimi
The problem you have arguing against the "salad of nonsense" is your premise.

To me, it still does not matter. Human, not human, it remains a guest inside another human being and may remain a guest only for as long as the host allows.

Subject to utilitarian arguments suggesting that guest removal is best done earlier, rather than later.

If medical advances push viability to the first trimester, then it would be up to society to save or not save fetuses removed from people who do not want them inside their bodies.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Wed Jan 30 12:35:40
lol :)

This specific issue is not ”philosophical”, it is an observation and not contingent on semantics or language i.e ”unified noun state”. It is biological in the sense that we have defined the field, but even without a biological field it is (at least on this planet, for most life and virtually all the life closely related to us) universal. Life begins at conception. Intelligent pro-choice people would argue for when and why human life deserves protection, not change the science.

Which brings to why I brought up sociologically defined genders (in my reaponse to Nekran) and the attempts by certain groups and people to re-define and change the facts to fit their own ideas. Don’t hold beliefs that have empirical answers, you will be disappointed.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Wed Jan 30 12:35:58
Beliefs = values
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Wed Jan 30 12:41:43
Jergul
Stick to cheering.
TJ
Member
Wed Jan 30 12:46:58
Guest..., or invader absent of protection?

Build that wall!

Correlates

Collective inconsistencies.

This is a serious game.
swordtail
Anarchist Prime
Wed Jan 30 12:55:49
schrödinger's baby
jergul
large member
Wed Jan 30 14:21:53
Nimi
Why not try to grow a pair?

One of the forum characteristics is dog piling.

Look to Seb if you feel you need guidance in this shocking role role reversal from piler to pilee.

jergul
large member
Wed Jan 30 14:28:40
TJ
Analogies don't really fit. Neither guest, nor invader. The only thing that is certain is that the entity is inside someone's body.

I am hard-pressed to find a philosophy you might be fond of that does not insist that integrity is grounded on the physics of self.

But like you said, inconsistencies are the name of the game.

ST
I lol'd. Nice!
TJ
Member
Wed Jan 30 14:57:45
It isn't a mystery. The correlate was protection. Not that it is full proof, but would create a large reduction.

I agree not invader or guest. :)

Sexual urgency without preparation is as negligent as a gambler in Vegas in my opinion. Are they the same, obviously not. Whatever makes you feel good in the short term, eh?

People gonna do what people gonna do. Human nature...
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Wed Jan 30 15:27:15
Jergul
There is no need to grow what I already slapped on your face :)

It's a characteristics of dog pilers, not "the forum". If I engage in what you call "dog piling" I am actually conducting my on line of arguments with say seb, not telling the so called "dog piler", "Well said". Nekran stopped responding and you went full retard. Cheering isn't dogpiling, dogpiling doesn't work if I just ignore you retarded posts. Seb could do that you know, it is his choice to respond, and I take care not to "dog pile" him or anyone else. It is a characteristic of weak men, AKA toxic masculinity.
jergul
large member
Wed Jan 30 15:30:29
TJ
An ounce of prevention so to speak.

Nimi
lol, you dog pile like you are in heat. The way you then characterized yourself it true enough in my opinion.
jergul
large member
Wed Jan 30 15:32:58
It is of course entirely consistent for a bitch to whine about a few words on solid writing craftsmanship.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Wed Jan 30 15:35:31
>>Whatever makes you feel good in the short term, eh?<<

And really, that is what this is about. I am not very comfortable to be honest with the position I ended up in with abortion. I say ended up in because to me it followed logically. I am not saying that makes me right or even that the logic is solid (though I believe it is) just that I don't think I have my choice in the matter without making some sort of arbitrary exception, because utility, convenience. Maybe these things will be tested one day, we will see how well I stand up.
TJ
Member
Wed Jan 30 15:43:40
"I am hard-pressed to find a philosophy you might be fond of that does not insist that integrity is grounded on the physics of self."

Careful there or you'll be professing Rand's idea of selfishness being a virtue. I'm fond of my own philosophy. Self interest, oddly enough, just like everyone else.

Integrity is self interest.

This is why I asked the question:

Where does moral integrity begin and end.

Is it believed we are born with integrity?

I only have questions. :)
jergul
large member
Wed Jan 30 15:46:25
Nimi
Thinking of a sex change? I don't think pregnancy is medically viable, so you will never have to make the choice.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Wed Jan 30 15:46:53
It only "feels" like that because you get too emotional involved jergul.
jergul
large member
Wed Jan 30 15:49:17
TJ
Integrity of self presumes awareness of self. When do humans become self-aware?

I think the legal position on viability outside the womb a good a guess as any.
jergul
large member
Wed Jan 30 15:50:24
Nimi
Not at all beyond my calling as an educator of the morally ignorant.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Wed Jan 30 15:55:23
Definitly more than a thimble. Whatever fantasy you then tell yourself to feel good about you emotional attachment is fine with me.
jergul
large member
Wed Jan 30 15:56:27
Nimi
What you are demonstrating most of all is a weak understanding of the difference between "self" and "others".

Its pretty dangerous not to fully grasp such fundamental boundaries.
jergul
large member
Wed Jan 30 15:58:39
You should also install a spell-checker.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Wed Jan 30 16:08:47
Yea sure, brofessor, self and others. Tell me more.

I want you to read these posts knowing I would not even install something as trivial as a spell-checker, it is filter for idiots, but also that is how little I care.
TJ
Member
Wed Jan 30 16:16:53
"TJ
Integrity of self presumes awareness of self. When do humans become self-aware?"

Without scientific proof otherwise, it seems to me that self awareness is the infancy of integrity. The end would be consistency in speech and action. Right isn't a requisite and there is no magical moment.

It isn't about what you think, it is adhering consistently to what you think from my perspective.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Wed Jan 30 16:27:22
While it is difficult to definitively pin down when humans become "self-aware" it is well after birth, that much is certain. Certainly not for the first 6-8 months. The "mirror test" is questionable, but would put at 18 months.
Nekran
Member
Wed Jan 30 17:01:35
Nimi, you keep claiming that science is on your side, but you never give a definition of what a human being is. Understandably so, as I've mentioned before, as it is a very hard thing to define. There's definitely no scientific consensus that a zygote is a human being.

Your view on things makes universally lauded medical practices into murder. Doctors into serial killers. It is not a sensible point of view. Though I will hand you that it is not an illogical one. But stop pretending that science is on your side because the wikipedia article titled "human life cycle" includes the zygote.

When you go to the butcher to buy a chicken, you would not be contented to be handed a fertilized egg.

And do you seriously consider doctors who practice preimplantation genetic diagnosis to be mass murderers? Even though they do it to help people, actual people, to have healthy babies? Do you consider people who have frozen embryos at their disposal in the hospital to be monsters?

Because you have to, to be consistent. And if that is your point of view, then frankly your point of view sucks and needs changing.
jergul
large member
Wed Jan 30 17:19:08
TJ
I was thinking of mentioning the mirror test nimi brought up (ty nimi).

Aha. You are looking at the consistency of my moral framework.

I am pretty consistent, though tempered by pragmatics. It certainly extends to my political philosophy and the integrity of the nation-state as the primary building block for the "self" of international relations.

Pragmatic in that sense that all could be forgiven if Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Venezuela were actually "fixed" by violating their integrity.

Or pragmatic in sense that there should be some form of abortion deadline. Wait too long and its too late.

I cannot defend either with consistency to what I otherwise believe. So would be inconsistent in that sense.
TJ
Member
Wed Jan 30 18:58:02
I'm not willing to accept that the mirror test is the first instance of self awareness.

The level of integrity defines a nation. Belief is a curse on humanity.
jergul
large member
Thu Jan 31 01:53:03
I was not suggesting the mirror test is the first (or indeed the last in the case of dementia) instance of self-awareness.

Belief is a function of the human condition. Nothing is truly known. Belief to our best knowledge is as good as it gets. Accepting as we do that all knowledge is preliminary and waiting to be replaced by new and better knowledge.

Curse? Sure. But it is what it is.
swordtail
Anarchist Prime
Thu Jan 31 08:49:50
http://pbs.twimg.com/media/DyGX1gJU8AA8isR.jpg
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Thu Jan 31 10:36:23
Nekra
Science is ”on my side” as in I am giving an accurate description of the observations made and documented in biology and embryology textbooks regarding when a new human life begins. Yes.

The definition has been given. A human being starts as a zygote and then ends with death. You can pick the point of death and then tell me what else would qualify as ”a human being”. A placenta is not a human being, even though it starts as part of the zygote, the same way an arm isn’t a human being even though an arm also starts as part of a zygote. A cancer may start as a zygote, but it isn’t a human being, it is the end of that human being. A cancer is a damaged cell that is acting so abnormally that is doesn’t even terminate itself.

Slavery was lauded as a compassionate practice for millenia. Not a grest argument.

It isn’t wiki, it is all the hundred of books that form the basis of the information people reference and put in to wiki. Basic knowledge like heliocentism, evolutionary theory, speed of light etc.

Beyond that I have no idea what you mean with me ”thinking science is on my side”. There is no side to be on,
Observation:
the life of the human organism begins with the fertilization of an egg.

>>When you go to the butcher to buy a chicken, you would not be contented to be handed a fertilized egg.<<

That is correct, a fertilized chicken egg has very little material value if you want to eat chicken or have a pet chicken or a hen that lays eggs. It would likely die if you wanted it for a pet unless you took great care of the egg, knowing that, it could work. I value people over chickens.

We already dealt with IVF type arguments in the other thread and I gave my answer there.

Same arguments.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Thu Jan 31 10:54:39
Regarding the mirror test
Look up ”Delusional misidentification syndrome”.

It is reasonable to assume that self-awareness emerges long after birth. You have all observed your children. My son is 17 months and is slowy understanding the concepts of himself, mommy and daddy, that mommy isn’t here, that this onject doesn’t belong to him. You gestate as part of somone else for 9 months and it will take some time to sense you are your own thing, even physically. That is why rocking and holding them close or humming sooths them, it reminds them of the womb.
TJ
Member
Thu Jan 31 12:02:23
Nim:

Does the test prove that adults don't have self awareness?

Full steam ahead.

jergul:

I should have been more explicit. It is the beginning of recognizing their own facial image. Not the beginning of self awareness.

As for belief: No explanation should be necessary, it's like most thoughts, good and bad. Moral integrity in thought and action, is nearly unobtainable if not impossible. A life long process from beginning to end. Not an obsessive goal.

If you believe something simply because it works for you is the curse.

Such as the development process of conceived human life. Using economics or selfishness as an excuse for the dereliction of your own sovereign entity-from my perspective- relinquishes their sovereignty. Clearly there are exceptions to every situation not created by your personal dereliction. There are better paths to economic security and mental/physical stability.

Individual sovereignty has its limits. We know them as collectively decided laws.

Moral integrity is why I take the previously mentioned stand on the issue of abortion. The desensitization of life has always been present in our world for better or worse.

Out of sight, out of mind.

st:

Nothing when it comes to human nature is a surprise fabricated or authentic. I laughed.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Thu Jan 31 12:14:50
TJ
It is more of a self-perception test. We all know people (without a diagnos) whose perception of themselves and their abilities align poorly with reality, they seem perfectly self-ware *chuckle* :)
TJ
Member
Thu Jan 31 12:23:21
Yep, self-perception, self image are processes in development. Extensions of self-awareness. Words are kind of important.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Thu Jan 31 12:33:54
That is why I said it is ”questionable” when I mentioned it, I was aware of that condition I posted. Though I do think it is after birth, along with many other cognitive functions. Or maybe it is a prerequisites for other higher faculties. It could be you know, we think of self-awareness as of a higher order, when it could be fundamental. Hmm...
TJ
Member
Thu Jan 31 12:38:20
The hmm is appropriate. It is fundamental to be aware of self in order to learn. Give your near toddler more credit. At two months he began to respond to facial expression. A very important time in security development.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Thu Jan 31 12:43:44
Yes I am instantly more buffudled now. Given the fact that everything is new and bright and their communication skills very low. How would you even begin to test something like? Indeed how would you learn if you are not aware of the self?

Well said ;)
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Thu Jan 31 12:44:57
Im gonna go with zygote. Just to be safe :) and only slightly to troll my mass murdering friends.
Nekran
Member
Fri Feb 01 01:55:04
"Slavery was lauded as a compassionate practice for millenia. Not a grest argument."

I love that you keep making this argument while you are the one who thinks he has moral authority over what should or should not be going on inside other poeple's bodies.

"We already dealt with IVF type arguments in the other thread and I gave my answer there. Same arguments."

But your answer is extremely inconsistent. Thinking multiple homicide of innocent people is OK if it is done with good intentions is not a sensible stance to take.

If all innocent life should be protected as you claim, you should be telling people with horrible genetic diseases that if they want kids they'll just have to chance it. And if tha means raising a kid that will live in extreme pain until the age of 8, hey, at least you didn't murder any innocents.


I really don't understand that you think morally it is better to have a bunch of unwanted children and horribly diseased children than to destroy some embryos long before awareness kicks in.
jergul
large member
Fri Feb 01 02:35:12
TJ
As I suspected. We both compromise from the same base position.

Though you are wording the compromise far more harshly than I would (the nuance between surrogate for self and extension of self).

Nimi
I take it you are firmly against taking anyone off life-support ever.

Your moral utopia would be full to the brim with dysfunction.
jergul
large member
Fri Feb 01 03:26:05
Nimi
I will explain. Your moral position suggests a Mars habitat scale investment into medicine.

In Sweden alone, some 30 000 humans are destroyed each year. Multiply that by life expectancy at birth to get the number of life-years lost per year.

Right now, medical viability is at a measly 22-24 weeks. This needs to be pushed down to 8 weeks (the majority of abortions take place before 8 weeks).

Abortion techniques must stop killing the fetus and artificial womb technology has to be seriously developed.

It of course follows that massive investments in child services and adoption support have to be built up.

I am not really sure if you have calculated the evolutionary impact adoption of marginal children replacing natural birth in high functioning families.

But all this is just a reasonable cost compared to the incalculable value of every human life, no matter the genetic potential.
jergul
large member
Fri Feb 01 03:34:36
You may want to evaluation your politics in a more general sense. We have already established that caring for offspring can be handed off to society.

In a more general sense, every human life has to be extended for as long as possible by any means possible.

This is only possible with vastly expanded public services.

Expansion would be a moral dictate of your belief system. Which renders your politics in a more general sense amoral at best. And given that you have a moral basis that precludes amorality, it would render your politics immoral.

Immorality which in turns undermines your moral position. If you can be immoral in some ways, then why should we humour claims to morality elsewhere.

Particularly when those claims are at the expense of other people's freedoms?
TJ
Member
Fri Feb 01 11:52:28
Moral authority is not the same as moral integrity. One is collectively legislated law that doesn't supersede my individual moral integrity. No one is forced to abort a child, as of yet, lawfully.

Many things happen in our world I don't approve of and that is why I don't do them. Consistent individual moral integrity.

Abiding by law-moral authority-doesn't prevent me from maintaining my level of personal moral integrity. What I speak is hopefully consistent with my action.

Protection of self, above all, is what maintains my sovereign integrity. It isn't a pie in the sky-just the truth in my world.

Moral isn't a dirty word. We all have them and they are being discussed in this thread.
jergul
large member
Fri Feb 01 13:03:51
TJ
My last post was for nimi.

Moral authority as you termed it seems close to what I call surrogates of self. It cannot have integrity in a moral sense as it is a wider proxy of the actual self. Integrity meaning whole, complete, consistent, as opposed to fragmented, incomplete, and inconsistent.

"Protection of self" simply means keeping self integrity intact.

To me, moral follows from acknowledging integrity of self, recognizing its crucial importance, and aiming for consistency above all.

Which is why consistency checks are important, as is acknowledging inconsistencies that inevitably exist.

There are of course other moral systems. Based primarily on surrogates for self (for example honour, God, property, or country).

I still think we differ most of all on the concepts extension of self and surrogates for self.
TJ
Member
Fri Feb 01 13:58:54
jergul:

I knew who you were responding to in your post. I was responding to general context and no one in particular.

""Protection of self" simply means keeping self integrity intact."

We agree, just accomplished and maintained differently.

There can only be one individual moral system within systems and it can cover all of your separations of systems. The idea is consistency within all moral valued systems as you defined.

I don't ignore the integral connections and ethical adherence you view as somehow different in them.

All can and should be consistent. I think most realize they aren't. That doesn't negate your idea of other moral systems, because they are individual choice.

Differences are a given, expected and respected agree or not. The honorable position is in consistency of your chosen system.

Amoral or moral, that is the question. :)
jergul
large member
Sat Feb 02 05:41:57
TJ
My view is a bit axiomatic. To me, integrity means consistently complete and whole. Self-integrity means a complete, whole, and consistent self.

It could be my maritime background. A ship sinks if it loses and does not regain its hull integrity.

This is the ideal. Testing for, identifying, and remediating inevitable inconsistencies it ultimately the most important things a person can do.

Our divide can be found here. Extension of integrity to beyond self is to me contradictory.

The integrity of self is by definition a complete and enclosed concept.

I realize you disagree. Fair enough.

To me, the most important tool is always to test for reciprocity. If you desire A, would you accept that others desire A onto you?

Or the reversal: If someone desire B, is it imaginable that they would accept that others desire B onto them?

I express this most clearly in nation-state interactions. Here I assume that our nation-state system is built on the integrity of countries, and otherwise follows the same principles I outlined.

(hmmm, a CoC declared this or that head of state illegitimate and appointed someone else. I wonder if that CoC would accept that his mandate was declared illegitimate, and alternatives recognized in his place? To name the most recent example of "reciprocity fail").

The principle of reciprocity gives the basis for collective responsibility. A commonwealth of individuals acting in concert to ensure their individual integrities (heh, integrity has no plural. I am not surprised) remain intact.

It should not however be mistaken for a whole more important than its parts. The commonwealth has integrity according to nation-state rules. Its legitimacy is based on the right to self-determination. But it is not an extension of the integrity of persons.

We disagree no doubt. Fair enough.

Dulce et Decorum est pro patria mori expresses fully a range of features that occur when surrogates for self are followed.

Surrogates for self allow for the creation of other moral systems that are not based on the concept of personal self-integrity.

History is full of examples of how badly that plays out.
jergul
large member
Sat Feb 02 05:47:35
As for the question: Amoral is that which sets aside values citing a different set of rules. Immoral is that with set aside values without referring to a different set of rules. Morality is adhering to values by following a set of rules as closely as possible.

Rules meaning a procedural system based on fundamental axioms. Axioms meaning values.

In a nutshell.
jergul
large member
Sat Feb 02 06:14:40
Addendum: Amoral can also be that which has no values. Though lack of applicable sentience. Found perhaps in humans amongst the very young, the very old, and those with certain medical conditions. Commonplace elsewhere.
TJ
Member
Sat Feb 02 11:28:43
jergul:

We don't disagree as much as you seem to express. The actual disagreement still seems to be in how we are to accomplish and maintain self integrity.

Background/history is the number one qualifier assisting or defeating self integrity. Do we allow for and learn from mistakes? Hopefully we do with experience upon experience. That shouldn't be a repetitious endeavor of behavior.

Decisions we make in life aren't impulses unless one is amoral or young working with a deficient library of information.

The best attribute of a human being is the quality/ability to think about our thinking, which I defend as being the most important asset we possess.

Background is the library of decision making.

Ships aren't an endowed life that thinks, but still, maintenance is necessary to maintain its integrity. It is unable to alter its course.

I'll say it once again: Self integrity is a life long changing process, it does demand reasonable leniency.

The world is too lenient from my perspective and that encourages repetition. It doesn't promote change, it only promotes recycling.

Yes, I am harsh in today's system, but only toward myself. I have no choice,but to be lenient with those that surround me, but I have the choice to be harsh or lenient on self.

It's been fun and interesting, but nothing remains other than recycling information from our libraries. Thanks for your responses.
jergul
large member
Sat Feb 02 12:01:21
heh, almost.

I think the integrity of self is unalienable. Both my own, and those of others.

It can be violated, but only by external force.

In my world view, violation is always a philosophical inconsistency by those applying force, though the justification for inconsistency can be rock solid.

Moral integrity on the other hand is a life long project as you describe.

The devil is always in the details.
TJ
Member
Sat Feb 02 12:24:19
Interesting word-unalienable.

Both of us know the crux of the issue-perspective of when human life begins. It's the issue in the room.

"It can be violated, but only by external force."

Not only by external force. It can also be violated by self. Force isn't the only allowance of entry. Are we discussing contradictions?

Human issues...
jergul
large member
Sat Feb 02 12:51:28
TJ
I cannot think of what I would think is an example of a competent (in a legal sense) human violating its own integrity of self. Remembering if we will that even the fundamental to be or not to be is inherent to self-integrity.

Violating the morality that arises from such a moral basis can however happen every day and twice on Sunday.

Abortion is a non-issue for me. No one has the right to be inside someone else. I am not a fan of abortion and think other options should be fully explored, but fundamentally, it is the host's call.

I am sure we disagree.

I would not even be fond of abortion when it becomes medically feasible to nurture fetus externally. Assuming as I do that a change of environment is trauma.

The inconsistency for me here is why we limit abortions at all. The justification for that can be rock solid, but still is a justification for an inconsistency.

But again, I think it a piss-poor reconciliation to terminate a fledgling human.

I cannot emphasize that enough.
TJ
Member
Sat Feb 02 13:08:19
Abortion isn't a issue with me either.

"No one has the right to be inside someone else."

Not unless opportunity of allowance is neglected. I'm not discussing forced rape victims.

My entire contribution in this thread has been about human development. That development begins at a primitive stage, conception.

Once conceived why do you believe that the conception isn't entitled the equal inalienable right and who is the cause or decider?

You really don't need to answer. Seniority is a bitch, eh? chuckle
TJ
Member
Sat Feb 02 13:09:23
BTW, we agree. :)
show deleted posts
Bookmark and Share