How to make abortions rare?

[End Bringer]

NOTE: A human life is not the same thing as a human being. Just to be sure this is 100% clear.

What's the difference?

[QuestionMark]

I think to Myron being entails our kind of awareness.

[JustMyron]

I think to Myron being entails our kind of awareness.

Exactly. That awareness is what separates us from many other kinds of life, which it is more OK to kill for food (although ideally it would be best if we could avoid killing anything at all). See my point 3 QM quoted a few posts ago.

[JustMyron]

One such argument was about Obama. I'm against Obama on almost every thing that he intends to do as Messiah per the great Louis Farakhan president. As you may know his first act as president, is apparently going to be the passage of the legislation that permits abortion on demand at any stage of pregnancy.

I'd be rather against that, if that's the case. But I think the natural corrective mechanisms in your society (as I'm in Canada, so the Obama-McCain question is not directly applicable to me) will take care of getting that fixed. When you talk about natural law, one of the things I've noticed is that the further from common-sense and intelligent action a society gets, the more pressure there is for a course correction, and the easier it is to make an argument for change in the right direction.

But besides that, the man has a great education policy. However, I think it is suspect, in that he wants to unify and strengthen education, and he targets the youth in a lot of his ventures. In my opinion he's trying to do what many organizations and religions in the past have done. Compel the masses by forming their opinion for them when they are very young. In a round about way I've come to respect McCains lack of opinion on anything regarding education. It tells me he's not trying to steal our children. He respects parents, and respects liberty rather than compulsion.

But the reason I draw this out. My revelation over the past few days is that socialism, or more especially communism, creates an atmosphere of mutual poverty, so that it takes away a 'natural' drive to achieve, and compete. This is deadly to Christianity, though it would seem on the surface to be the embodiment of Christian politics. The Apostle Paul makes it explicit that the natural laws(the natural moral law) written on our hearts, and codified in the Old Testament, are a TUTOR to Christ. I don't want to expand much beyond that, but abortion on demand at any stage of pregnancy, and communism(removal of the striving to succeed, and achieve) seem to be spiritual attacks on the tutor of the Law. In other words, they fail to observe natural moral laws, and that is deadly physically, and spiritually.

To me it's simple. We have good evidence that freedom of choice, and allowing the diversity of opinion, leads to better decisions in general. You may be interested in a blog post where I talked to a guy by the screen name of DarwinCatholic, about how real democracy has almost nothing to do with voting to elect your leaders, and much more to do with freedom of the press, freedom of expression and opinion. In a free society, ideas compete for supremacy, and (in theory at least) those that make the most sense win. So out of 10,000 opinions on any given issue, the one that ends up being the decider as to what to do about a certain problem tends to be the one by a person who has spent a long time studying the issue, thought carefully about it, and formulated an opinion that really makes sense. THAT is why democracies succeed where centralized governing structures fail - Just as free markets lead to more efficient matching of supply and demand, free markets in ideas lead to ideas that make sense being adopted more widely than is likely to happen in societies where the ideas all come from the top down. The blog post in question is here.

I agree entirely with 3. It's a statement of fact. Recalling your post, I do not believe that you are Machiavellian. Unless you also believe that lying as pragmatism is acceptable, and you are deceiving me, you are very much different from him.

I believe honesty is about the most important personal trait there is. Without honesty, any conversation descends into chaos, and the authenticity of any relationship between two people is destroyed. If I can't convince you that I'm right while being honest, then I'm probably not right. Plus, I'm a really poor liar. My thoughts are complex enough that I end up contradicting myself sometimes even though I try to be consistent - if I had to remember various lie-threads, or there was any doubt by the people I was speaking to that if I say something that conflicts with something else I said it's an honest mistake, I'd be doomed.

I understand point 4. I can't agree because I'm a Christian(have no desire, and can't fathom truly believing otherwise).

Fair enough. I can't really fathom being a Christian, and truly believing it. But so long as you can see how not believing in the soul makes it much harder to take your position on abortion, that's a step towards us understanding each other better.

Point 5 seems to be an extension of the natural laws of investment. The things which are rarest, and hardest to come by, are more valuable. That's reasonable but much more complex than apparent.

Yup. Summary of the complexity: If it's so hard to value financial assets (that have a simple numeric value) that we can't even get a working financial system that doesn't periodically crash every decade or so, how the heck do you correctly value life?

6. By this metric, a human embryo, which is about as complex as a bacterium at first, and has a good chance of not surviving regardless of my actions, would be less valuable than the life of a mother, who has a set of unique experiences which would be lost forever if she were to die. But given the embryo's potential to develop into a human being, which is a potential not shared by other life on earth, it should still be valued relatively highly, and not casually destroyed. It is properly regarded as a seperate, growing organism, but not a seperate being, as being implies awareness and intelligence. An embryo immediately after conception is no more a being than a bacteria, but it does have the potential to become one. Therefore, where possible, it should be protected, but where the interests of a human being are severely negatively affected this should be taken into account as well.

And here is the complexity of it. Human beings do not direct our own evolution, almost never as individuals except by selection that we don't understand and rarely if ever succeed at effecting but naturally. And certainly not as a species. Every potential life, carries the potential to save our species from some super germ, or to make some genetic leap into superiority, or some intellectual genius able to change all of humanity for the best. I think that you are of a fair mind, and might recognize where I am going with this so I will conclude by pointing out that we are unlikely to know the true value of a single life, and the potential change that one child can bring is perhaps greater than the potential change of the mother. Yet again, there are very very few circumstances in which a mother's life is in jeopardy.

Absolutely. The decision is not simple at all, and there is always the risk for very serious error. Arguments like "A mother owns her eggs, fertilized or not" are huge over-simplifications of the decision-making process that you would have to go through to correctly conclude that a certain abortion is "right", as well as being erroneous in that they do not recognize a distinction between a fertilized and unfertilized egg. The decision to abort is one I have no confidence that I would be able to make correctly, and so I don't even want to touch it in my own personal life, which is why I will never risk putting anyone in a situation where I have gotten them pregnant and they do not want to have a child. Not the easy path, and definitely not the popular one, but right from my first post on this thread (and in fact right from when I was a young teenager, when I was first presented with this issue and asked to think about it), I have maintained I think it's the right way to go.

And if you would again recall, that if the natural law is really a law, then we should do everything possible to get the ideal of justice right in addition to the pragmatic value.

Agreed. The only pragmatic question is how best to correct any misalignments we can see in our society. This has two parts:
1. Do we correctly understand what's best for our society, and what the "natural law" really is?
2. Where our society deviates from this, what is the best approach to correcting the problem?

To figure out the correct action we should take as people who want to make the world a better place, we have to get both right. Which can be, ya know, a little tricky...

[JustMyron]

Anyway, I've spent a lot of time and energy over the past several weeks on this conversation. While I'll continue to participate, I am going to take some more time away from the forum as well. I'll check back every day or two, and probably have something to say, but the main point I wanted to make is made. Unless someone from the pro-choice side would like to come on and start haranguing me for sabotaging the standard pro-choice line, in which case I may have to defend myself.

QM, when I get a chance, over on my blog there is a guy who wants to take a crack at convincing me to be Catholic. I'm going to hand him a long conversation (another one that took several weeks) between UnkleE and I, and once he's read that if he still wants to have a go at it, I'll probably spend the majority of my energy there for a bit. You're welcome to participate if you like.

[End Bringer]

Exactly. That awareness is what separates us from many other kinds of life, which it is more OK to kill for food (although ideally it would be best if we could avoid killing anything at all). See my point 3 QM quoted a few posts ago.

Not good enough. People in commas or asleep aren't "aware". They are most definitely human beings.

[Airyaman]

Exactly. That awareness is what separates us from many other kinds of life, which it is more OK to kill for food (although ideally it would be best if we could avoid killing anything at all). See my point 3 QM quoted a few posts ago.

Not good enough. People in commas or asleep aren't "aware". They are most definitely human beings.

People who are asleep dream. No so sure about those in comas, but they might have some type of awareness as well.

[End Bringer]

People who are asleep dream. No so sure about those in comas, but they might have some type of awareness as well.

Then they're dreaming. They aren't "aware". Or how much "awareness" would you say they have? They have 50% awareness, so they're a 50% human being? Seems rather arbitrary.

Mostly I have trouble with the notion is because "being" is very different than what you seem to imply it means. Simply "being" means to exist. That is why if an embryo is indeed a human life it's a human being by it's existence. The same way a cat is considered a feline "being", or a dog a canine "being".

[JustMyron]

Not good enough. People in commas or asleep aren't "aware". They are most definitely human beings.

Of course they are human beings. I have never said or implied they aren't. You may have incorrectly inferred that that would be my position, but that's not my problem.

You may have noticed that I've said several times it's this is all very tricky, and drawing the line between a human being and human life is not something I am confident I can do well, and so it is something I will avoid doing wherever possible. That remains true even if this seriously inconveniences me, as in forcing me to end good relationships I would like to continue because the other person considered lack of pregnancy-risking sex a deal-breaker but did not want children.

In case you haven't noticed this in what I've written so far, notice it now. Drawing the line between a human being and something which is a human life but not a human being is not at all simple, and I have never said it was.

However, if you want to tell me that something that has no nervous system, no brain, no potential to suddenly wake up and be aware at any moment, is the same as someone who is in a coma or asleep, I say you are incorrect. An embryo immediately after conception lacks the capacity for awareness, and may never attain it. This is not the case for someone who is asleep or comatose (unless the comatose person is conclusively brain-dead and only alive because their autonomic nervous system continues to function. In which case they are still far more developed than an embryo immediately after conception. Hypothetically, even someone doctors judge brain dead could regain consciousness at any moment. For an embryo without a brain worth speaking of, this is simply not the case.)

[JustMyron]

Mostly I have trouble with your notion is because "being" is very different than what you seem to imply it means. Simply "being" means to exist. That is why if an embryo is indeed a human life it's a human being by it's existence. The same way a cat is considered a feline "being", or a dog a canine "being".

You are confusing the notion of a "human being" where both words together represent a noun which describes a thing, and the case where the words are taken seperately. There is a difference between saying someone is a being (noun) and someone or something that is being (verb). A chair can be (exist) but cannot be a being.

My apologies for being a little sharp with you. I'm probably just tired, but it's a little frustrating to have to explain the same thing several times, and when people start trying to support their positions by playing with grammar, it gets old quick.

[End Bringer]

You may have noticed that I've said several times it's this is all very tricky, and drawing the line between a human being and human life is not something I am confident I can do well, and so it is something I will avoid doing wherever possible. That remains true even if this seriously inconveniences me, as in forcing me to end good relationships I would like to continue because the other person considered lack of pregnancy-risking sex a deal-breaker but did not want children.

I think your problem is trying to draw a line at all. And certainly the fact that you seem to have such conviction, without solid reasoning behind it makes it even more of a problem.

In case you haven't noticed this in what I've written so far, notice it now. Drawing the line between a human being and something which is a human life but not a human being is not at all simple, and I have never said it was.

That's what makes it so disturbing. It's like saying you can kill those who don't have a certain level of intelligence. Someone asks what level of intelligence one needs to be at, your reply seems to amount to "I don't know, but they're stupid." If you can't explain a difference between the two, it's best not to advocate there is one till you can.

However, if you want to tell me that something that has no nervous system, no brain, no potential to suddenly wake up and be aware at any moment, is the same as someone who is in a coma or asleep, I say you are incorrect. An embryo immediately after conception lacks the capacity for awareness, and may never attain it. This is not the case for someone who is asleep or comatose (unless the comatose person is conclusively brain-dead and only alive because their autonomic nervous system continues to function. In which case they are still far more developed than an embryo immediately after conception. Hypothetically, even someone doctors judge brain dead could regain consciousness at any moment. For an embryo without a brain worth speaking of, this is simply not the case.)

So? An adult is far more "developed" than a toddler. A toddler is most definitely a human being. And if no one's ever pointed this out to you before, allow me to do so now, when I say you seem to be focusing on functionality to determine "being", while something can obviously lack a function or characteristic and still be a "being". A person on anesthsia or with a nerve disease may have a nervous system, but they might as well not have one for all it's functionality.

[JustMyron]

I think your problem is trying to draw a line at all. And certainly the fact that you seem to have such conviction, without solid reasoning behind it makes it even more of a problem.

OK, let's go through this again........

If I didn't draw a line at all, and said life could not be killed no matter what, I couldn't so much as eat vegetables, and the morally correct thing to do would be to allow myself to die of hunger rather than kill, just as I would seriously consider dying of hunger rather than killing someone nearby and eating them. So, I must draw a line somewhere. So must we all.

We share greater than 90% of our genes with other forms of life on this planet, and really genes are just configurations of atoms anyway. To say that a certain configuration of atoms makes a certain form of life worth preserving seems even more arbitrary to me than the idea of going by awareness. On those grounds, we could say that certain races are more worth preserving than others, or those with various genetic mutations are less worth preserving, and yet we do not do so. So genetics can't work as a morally acceptable differentiating factor. Complexity by itself can't work as a morally acceptable factor either, because there is no clear dividing line in terms of complexity. In terms of complexity, life goes back in a smooth continuum straight to viruses.

So, if all of these things seperately can't give us a clear indication what life we can kill for food and where we should draw the line, what can?

The best I can come up with is to say that life with a higher level of potential complexity, AND the capacity to be more aware and intelligent, should be valued more highly. Is this correct in an absolute sense? Possibly not, maybe what I've come up with is not how I should value life. But your idea of valuing life by genetics alone is one I have considered and rejected. If you are not doing this, but instead believe in an immortal soul, well, that poses difficulties as well, because we cannot detect an immortal soul, so given two embryos of different species, we can't tell which one has one and which one doesn't. Perhaps there are other species we should be protecting, and yet we're committing wanton murder and don't even know it, if the differentiating factor is the presence of an immortal soul.

The questions you ask are important, and I have considered them and many others as carefully as I can, from as many angles as I can think of, and come up with a system which works as well as any I have ever heard of. I am open to other suggestions, but what you have suggested so far makes less sense than the system I have already adopted.

I'm going to bed. Have a good night.

[JustMyron]

Ugh. Just before I fell asleep, I realized I'm probably too tired to be writing this, because... well, I said:

what you have suggested so far makes less sense than the system I have already adopted.

when you had said:

I think your problem is trying to draw a line at all.

So when it comes to where to draw the line, you don't have any suggestions. You clearly haven't thought this through, and you may want to consider giving it some more thought before you lecture me. In black and white, here are your three options:

1. Killing is murder in all cases, you can't draw a line. Result: You can't eat. You die of starvation. This appears to be your position, although you haven't died of starvation yet, so I think perhaps you should think some more about the position you have chosen by your actions, rather than just your words.
2. Killing is wrong in some cases, but OK in others. You can eat, but you have to figure out what it's OK to kill, and what not.
3. Killing is OK in all cases. You can eat anything, including the guy sitting next to you. He may object, though, and you're likely to find most other people will as well. Also, if everyone adopted this as their moral principle surrounding killing, you'd probably be in serious danger of being eaten.

So, in practical terms, #2 is your only option if you'd like to live and not be eaten by your neighbor. Make sense? Now, if you can come up with a system for deciding what it's OK to kill that makes more sense than mine any time in the near future, I'll be very impressed. Good luck.

[Vynn]

What's wrong with letting a society draw the line where it wants to?

[Assyriankey]

What's wrong with letting a society draw the line where it wants to?

Nothing at all IMO - I actually think it must do this in order to survive long-term.

There will come a time in the future when having an extra child will be considered immoral because it will mean that some other family must miss out.

[JustMyron]

What's wrong with letting a society draw the line where it wants to?

And how do you suggest we, as a society, decide where the line should be? It seems we have some difficulty agreeing on that...

[catwixen]

Seems to me we do OK overall. At least in Western countries in this day and age. For the majority i think we do OK. There will always be dissenting parties.
I think there should be more watchdogs for politicians and corporations...can't see what can be done other than that.

[JustMyron]

Seems to me we do OK overall. At least in Western countries in this day and age. For the majority i think we do OK. There will always be dissenting parties.

We could do a lot worse than we are doing. But while people are calling each other murderers and are barely able to talk to each other about this issue, I think we could do better. There is a lot of ignorance in the world, and a lot of people's positions make no sense at all, and people are continuously getting hurt by this.

And... if there is a little dissent, we should ask why, because we might learn something from it. It is in the process of engaging with dissenting views that you learn new things and come to a better understanding of what your position should be.

Or would you say that this conversation has been pointless, since there will always be dissenting parties?

[JustMyron]

I like Airyaman's quote from the Talmud:

Do not be daunted by the enormity of the world's grief. Do justly, now. Love mercy, now. Walk humbly, now. You are not obligated to complete the work, but neither are you free to abandon it

What it means is, it doesn't matter how big (or small, if things are going pretty OK) the problems of the world are. You are obligated to do your part. Nothing more, but nothing less. If the problems of the world are small, that's good, because the amount each of us can do about it is small too.

[Vynn]

And how do you suggest we, as a society, decide where the line should be? It seems we have some difficulty agreeing on that...

We have difficulty agreeing on all sorts of things. In dealing with such things, our social and legal systems are all we have.

My suggestion is that it continue to be dealt with by whatever social and legal systems are in place. Currently, the social and legal systems are in agreement (to a great degree), and so it works out fine. There's always going to be individuals or pockets of individuals that disagree with the current system and/or aspects of the current system. That's why we have "hot-button" issues.

[JustMyron]

My suggestion is that it continue to be dealt with by whatever social and legal systems are in place.

You take it as a given that our legal system and our social values are in line and will remain so. But I ask why this is so, and how it came to be so. And my conclusion is that just as continued buying and selling in a marketplace keeps supply in line with demand, so continued expression of ideas about how things should be keeps our legal system in line with our values. I choose to participate because I have a certain idea of what I would like our future society to be, and I think this whole system works by changing minds one at a time. There are others who have different ideas, and we'll see whether those ideas are more successful than mine, but I can't control that. In a sense, I'm a price taker in the marketplace of ideas and social change, but not absolutely, I do have a little tiny bit of influence, and I intend to use it.

Also, I disagree with the idea of treating certain issues as "hot button" issues where some people are never going to see sense. I think the potential for people to understand each other and come together around the truth exists and should be pursued, regardless of whether the conversation is easy. Call me silly and idealistic if you want, but I think QM, if nobody else, has gained a new perspective from this conversation, which he would not have if I had written him off as not worth talking to because "He's one of those 'You're murdering a BABY' people".

[Vynn]

Also, I disagree with the idea of treating certain issues as "hot button" issues where some people are never going to see sense.

Hmm.. That strikes me very oddly. I think that a society (based on various factors) makes up its own morality. Thus, the "sense" of the society is a collective issue. Sure, you can voice your opinion and debate, but overall, the majority opinion is going to have the greatest influence. 

I think the potential for people to understand each other and come together around the truth exists and should be pursued,

Scientifically, yes. Morally, i'm not sure. People do things based on what makes sense to them and how society constrains them. What's considered "moral" should line up with what makes sense for the society as a whole. I imagine people are always going to disagree on issues of morality.

Call me silly and idealistic if you want, but I think QM, if nobody else, has gained a new perspective from this conversation, which he would not have if I had written him off as not worth talking to because "He's one of those 'You're murdering a BABY' people".

I'm not sure why i would call you those names, anyway.  I think people ought to spend time talking to people whom they want to spend time talking to.

[End Bringer]

If I didn't draw a line at all, and said life could not be killed no matter what, I couldn't so much as eat vegetables, and the morally correct thing to do would be to allow myself to die of hunger rather than kill, just as I would seriously consider dying of hunger rather than killing someone nearby and eating them. So, I must draw a line somewhere. So must we all.

Red herring. It's not the distinction between one life and another I'm calling you out on, it's the distinction between admitting "life" and "being".

We share greater than 90% of our genes with other forms of life on this planet, and really genes are just configurations of atoms anyway. To say that a certain configuration of atoms makes a certain form of life worth preserving seems even more arbitrary to me than the idea of going by awareness.

Indeed. But that rather proves too much. You are a human life. You're a configuration of atoms as well. You aren't aware when you're asleep. You seem to be making an arguement to justify someone taking your own life.

So, if all of these things seperately can't give us a clear indication what life we can kill for food and where we should draw the line, what can?

Being higher. And not "higher" in the sense of being more intelligent or complex or some other arbitrary characteristic, but "higher" in the sense of morality. It seems evident that if human beings are held to a higher standard of conduct than animals, it follows that we are indeed higher than animals. As such it brings the issue down to one very simple question: Is it a human being? If it is, then we shouldn't kill it. If it isn't then we are free to do so. Clear, simple, and easy. The only thing at issue is determining whether something is indeed a human being or not.

But your idea of valuing life by genetics alone is one I have considered and rejected.

I'd like to see the quote of where I supposedly said this.

If you are not doing this, but instead believe in an immortal soul, well, that poses difficulties as well, because we cannot detect an immortal soul, so given two embryos of different species, we can't tell which one has one and which one doesn't. Perhaps there are other species we should be protecting, and yet we're committing wanton murder and don't even know it, if the differentiating factor is the presence of an immortal soul.

It makes me laugh to know end when people bring up the issue of the soul. I have never brought up the issue when I enter a topic on abortion, for the very simple reason that I don't need to bring it up to argue against abortion.

[JustMyron]

The only thing at issue is determining whether something is indeed a human being or not.

Super. Then how do you determine whether something is a human being? You're right, you never said genetics, or the soul, or, for that matter, anything else. I made assumptions when I shouldn't have, and apparently took your assertion that I shouldn't draw any line whatsoever too literally.

And re: your idea about being held to a higher standard of behaviour. It's interesting. But an embryo isn't held to a higher standard of behaviour, as it has no idea what's going on nor an ability to choose its actions. Morally, an embryo is held to the same standard of behaviour as animals are.

[End Bringer]

Super. Then how do you determine whether something is a human being? You're right, you never said genetics, or the soul, or, for that matter, anything else. I made assumptions when I shouldn't have, and apparently took your assertion that I shouldn't draw any line whatsoever too literally.

I reference the Laws of Biogenesis and Identity myself: 'A thing is itself and not something else.' and 'Everything recreates according to its own kind.'

If you concede the parents are human beings, and that the thing in question is indeed a life, then it's a human being from conception and will remain a human being till it dies. Simple, easy, and most importantly a rather objective standard. You can confidently say "Yes, at this point a human being is formed. It isn't a watermellon that will be comming out."

And re: your idea about being held to a higher standard of behaviour. It's interesting. But an embryo isn't held to a higher standard of behaviour, as it has no idea what's going on nor an ability to choose its actions. Morally, an embryo is held to the same standard of behaviour as animals are.

No, because there is a difference between being held to a standard and being in a temporary state to not do anything. I would again point out that people in commas or asleep have as much moral activity as an embryo. They are expected not to act like sociopaths if they wake up, and I would say the same for the embryo when it grows up.

[JustMyron]

If you concede the parents are human beings, and that the thing in question is indeed a life, then it's a human being from conception and will remain a human being till it dies.

Given you've talked about slavery, I'm surprised you don't see the problem with this one. "A human being has human parents" means that you can arbitrarily redefine what a human being is at any time. Simple, easy, and so effective it's been done quite often throughout history. To allow things like slavery ("blacks aren't people, look how different they are from us, they're just work animals..."), and various killing-sprees in the name of national interests. I think it's a really bad idea to spread such a definition around, given how that logic has been abused in the past (and present).

What you're saying is that people are human beings because they come from people like you, and so other people who you define as like you recognize the commonality and are willing to agree to treat each other as a form of life you shouldn't kill. And if something you shouldn't kill has sex with something else you shouldn't kill then you make the unjustified leap to say you shouldn't kill the product of that process even if it has very few common characteristics with its parents (where "like-me-ness" appears to be your criteria for humanness). It will eventually, but it doesn't now, so your idea that it should be protected because of its humanness is flawed, if you define humanness in such a subjective way. Note I could use the same argument for awareness - eventually after growth and development an embryo may gain awareness (as an embryo may, or may not, develop into something recognizably human), so it should be protected absolutely from the moment of its creation. You didn't need to introduce the "a human being has human parents" argument into this at all, you could have tried to argue that I should just extend my current thinking to the moment of conception.

To help you out with convincing other people who haven't thought this through, the best argument I've heard along these lines is that since an embryo is at the same stage of development at the moment of after conception as you were at the moment after conception, you can't use stages of development to distance yourself from the act of aborting an embryo. In a sense, it's just like you were, so how is it right to kill it when killing a child could not be justified on the grounds it's not as developed as an adult? If you want to use a "it's human because it's like me" argument without defining what "like me" means in any objective way, that's about the best you're going to do.

What we are looking for is something as objectively verifiable as possible, not something we know for a fact can easily be abused, like the idea of having the proper parents. Your intentions are good, though, I'll give you that.

[JustMyron]

'A thing is itself and not something else.'

Would you also say it is correct to rephrase this as 'A thing is itself and cannot become anything else?' That seems to be what your argument is based on - an embryo can't become a human being, it either is or is not, from the moment it comes into existence. If I'm misinterpreting this, let me know.

[End Bringer]

Given you've talked about slavery, I'm surprised you don't see the problem with this one. "A human being has human parents" means that you can arbitrarily redefine what a human being is at any time. Simple, easy, and so effective it's been done quite often throughout history. To allow things like slavery ("blacks aren't people, look how different they are from us, they're just work animals..."), and various killing-sprees in the name of national interests. I think it's a really bad idea to spread such a definition around, given how that logic has been abused in the past (and present).

I'm not seeing where you think all that follows from as your example is "look how different they are" doesn't have much to do with human being's only producing more of their own kind. Obviously a human being has human parents. What, you think your parents were fish?

And frankly I see most of the same reasons that people use to say an embryo isn't a human being are actually the same one's to justify why black's weren't human beings. They point to arbitrary differences of appearance and function in order to justify it. Essentially every race is like me, or you for that matter: we're all human beings.

What you're saying is that people are human beings because they come from people like you, and so other people who you define as like you recognize the commonality and are willing to agree to treat each other as a form of life you shouldn't kill.

Yep, that's the Law of Biogenesis.

And if something you shouldn't kill has sex with something else you shouldn't kill then you make the unjustified leap to say you shouldn't kill the product of that process even if it has very few common characteristics with its parents (where "like-me-ness" appears to be your criteria for humanness).

I've seem to amply justify it, by pointing out that the '"product" will be essentially the same as both "something you shouldn't kill".

It will eventually, but it doesn't now, so your idea that it should be protected because of its humanness is flawed, if you define humanness in such a subjective way.

Actually it's 'humanness' is complete from the moment of conception. It may not appear like a fully developed human beings, but physical characteristics are arbitrary under the Laws of Identity and Biogenesis. Frankly it's silly to expect a human being to keep a constant appearance, if not for the reasons of deformity that exists, but for the simple fact that age and growth means physical change. An acorn doesn't appear to be a tree, but an acorn is still an oak.

Note I could use the same argument for awareness - eventually after growth and development an embryo may gain awareness (as an embryo may, or may not, develop into something recognizably human), so it should be protected absolutely from the moment of its creation. You didn't need to introduce the "a human being has human parents" argument into this at all, you could have tried to argue that I should just extend my current thinking to the moment of conception.

For someone who decry's slavery you seem to use issues of 'appearance' a lot as if it were important. I'm saying "awareness" doesn't matter nor does "recognizably" because all those things don't determine when a thing is a thing. They're just traits and functions a thing can lack at any given time, while still being itself.

To help you out with convincing other people who haven't thought this through, the best argument I've heard along these lines is that since an embryo is at the same stage of development at the moment of after conception as you were at the moment after conception, you can't use stages of development to distance yourself from the act of aborting an embryo. In a sense, it's just like you were, so how is it right to kill it when killing a child could not be justified on the grounds it's not as developed as an adult?

This is very true, and just goes back to what I said about the Law of Identity. A thing will remain itself for as long as it exists. Every human being that has ever lived started as a one cell life, and every human being who will ever lived will start as a one cell life. And they're all human beings till they die.

If you want to use a "it's human because it's like me" argument without defining what "like me" means in any objective way, that's about the best you're going to do.

I already have-"like me" being "human being".

What we are looking for is something as objectively verifiable as possible, not something we know for a fact can easily be abused, like the idea of having the proper parents. Your intentions are good, though, I'll give you that.

I think you misconstrue a lot of what I'm saying. I only think of "proper parents" in terms of if they're properly human beings then what they concieve is a human being. The only way race comes into it is that, yeah if the two parents are Jews, then what is concieved is a Jew. Jews are human beings, thus the concieved Jew is a human being. If the parents are properly dogs then what will be conceived is properly a dog. It's not that difficult.

[JustMyron]

And frankly I see most of the same reasons that people use to say an embryo isn't a human being are actually the same one's to justify why black's weren't human beings. They point to arbitrary differences of appearance and function in order to justify it. Essentially every race is like me, or you for that matter: we're all human beings.

People didn't always agree that all members of all races are properly regarded as human beings. Some people still don't. What makes you right and them wrong? You can say it's so, but why is it so? My answer is because we all share the characteristic of awareness, and the ability to have this awareness comes from activity in a human brain, and possibly the brains of some other animals closely related to us, so we can tell with reasonable certainty when some form of this awareness might be present, and at other points when it definitely is not.

This question is important because just saying "I know what a human being is, it's obvious" opens the door to someone else saying "Well, no, I know what a human being is and it's not what you think" and you've got no defense.

What you're saying is that people are human beings because they come from people like you, and so other people who you define as like you recognize the commonality and are willing to agree to treat each other as a form of life you shouldn't kill.

Yep, that's the Law of Biogenesis.

You're completely missing the point. That definition is completely arbitrary, but you're treating it like it's absolute and objective. Just because you say something is a human being doesn't make it so, and just because you say it isn't doesn't make it so either. Other people can say different things, and if you've got nothing to back it up other than to say "that's the law of X" then you're stuck.

And if something you shouldn't kill has sex with something else you shouldn't kill then you make the unjustified leap to say you shouldn't kill the product of that process even if it has very few common characteristics with its parents (where "like-me-ness" appears to be your criteria for humanness).

I've seem to amply justify it, by pointing out that the '"product" will be essentially the same as both "something you shouldn't kill".

And now I'm going to give you an example of how just saying something is the law of biogenesis with no backup doesn't work. The core of the pro-choice argument is that an embryo is different from a baby, in that one is properly regarded as a human being while the other is not. As support, they can list off the many things that are present in babies which are not present in embryos. And yet you have nothing because you're stuck saying "a human being is a human being because it's obvious that it's a human being, and human beings were always human beings right from conception because my law of identity says this is so and it's a law".

It will eventually, but it doesn't now, so your idea that it should be protected because of its humanness is flawed, if you define humanness in such a subjective way.

Actually it's 'humanness' is complete from the moment of conception.

Why?

Let's approach this from a different angle. You treat the "law" of biogenesis and identity as if they are not under debate. But since they seem to be the basis of your argument, can you prove that they are true?

It's similar to this argument:

An acorn doesn't appear to be a tree, but an acorn is still an oak.

No, that doesn't make any sense to me, and if you think it's so you're going to have to demonstrate why. An acorn is an acorn. It may grow into an oak, but it is not an oak. It is the seed of an oak, that is all. Most acorns never grow into oaks, they get eaten or die and get eaten by bacteria, and become nutrients, which then become all kinds of things, some of which I have probably eaten. An acorn is no more an oak than it is me. Feel free to prove me wrong.

I already have-"like me" being "human being".

And you really, truly, do not see the problem with this?
The problem is that "Not like me" becomes "Not a human being".

If I understand your "law of identity" correctly, what you're saying is that there is no way to tell, sometimes, if something fits into a particular category, because none of its traits matter, but if it ever might fit into that category at any point in the future, it should be regarded as a member of that category forever. That just doesn't work. Things are put into different categories at different times, they very rarely stay in the same category forever. Even the earth used to be a bunch of stars, but it isn't any more. An oak used to be an acorn, but it isn't any more. You might say that oaks make acorns which make oaks, but oaks make acorns which make animals which make humans too.

What we are looking for is something as objectively verifiable as possible, not something we know for a fact can easily be abused, like the idea of having the proper parents. Your intentions are good, though, I'll give you that.

I think you misconstrue a lot of what I'm saying. I only think of "proper parents" in terms of if they're properly human beings then what they concieve is a human being. If the parents are properly dogs then what will be conceived is properly a dog. It's not that difficult.

Really. Ok, well there are breeds of coyote right now which are going extinct, but breeding with wolves instead of "their own kind" to stay alive. Are the resulting animals wolves, or coyotes? For humans, we have the ability to splice all kinds of genes together. If we've had fish DNA spliced into ours to fix a genetic condition, is the result a human being, or would you be OK with killing it? Could such a being have human children? You might think this is a ridiculous question and such a thing could never be done. But one of the major agricultural corproations (can't remember which, I think it might be Monsanto, it was in a documentary I listened to on the BBC about a year or so ago) is making a pig with the genes to create the fatty acids in fish oil, by splicing fish genes into the pig's genes. Similar things will eventually be done with humans, and we need to see that coming and think through the implications for how we define humanity.

Even without human intervention, the lines between different species are indistinct continuums, not immutable and distinct as you seem to think.

Bottom line, if I understand your two laws, our conversation can be partially summed up like this:

You: "If they're properly human beings then what they conceive is a human being"
Me: "Why?"
You: "The law of biogenesis. Also, if it is a human being, it was always a human being, from the moment of conception."
Me: "What? Why?"
You: "The law of identity."

I dispute the correctness of the "laws" of biogenesis and identity, then. (Although as I understood it all the law of biogenesis said was that life cannot, in the very beginning, come from non-living matter, and I'm not sure how you worked that up to support your argument, as I've never argued an embryo was not alive). As you have constructed them, these "laws" make no sense. An acorn is not an oak, and defining "human parents" with no reference to objective criteria of what makes a human parent different from a non-human one, treating it as if the distinction is obvious and universally recognized in direct opposition to the evidence of history, is dangerous.

[JustMyron]

Also, if I've misunderstood how your laws of identity and biogenesis link into everything (when it comes to biogenesis I suspect I have) it's because I hadn't ever heard of the law of identity until you brought it up, as nobody had tried to base their position on it before. So kudos for coming at this from a new angle, at least