Explain Your Reasoning.

[FutureIncoming]

In Message #429, Felicity wrote some stuff about which I wasn't able to respond immediately, such as this quote: "Ah, not quite. "Self-will" is an individual characteristic, not something you can ask a species "in totality" to demonstrate, even when all the individuals have it."

Then Felicity wrote: "Ummmm. Isn’t a “person” an individual? Why can’t that be a criteria? Because you can’t think of another species that has self-will? EXACTLY! however—the species “God” does!"

Then Felicity quoted: "And some of those others are doubtful. Mob psychology descriptions do not generally use the word "reasoning"... "

Then Felicity wrote: "Again...I.N.D.I.V.I.D.U.A.L. Each member of the mob has his own ability to reason (not to be confused with reasonableness) and chooses to act or not act."


A Person is an individual, but an individual is not always a Person (individual ant, individual fish, individual bacterium...) I was being careful to use terminology that, just because a species may have certain relevant characteristics, does not imply all the individuals in that species have those characteristics. And, in fact for the human species, we KNOW that not all individuals have Free Will (the unborn, for example).


Felicity quoted: "Heh, regarding hand-tipping, well, I'm pretty sure I've never claimed in any of my posts that adult humans were only animals.

Felicity wrote: "This paragraph—especially the last sentence led me to believe you were one that believed man is an animal—specifically since you give such credence to “the Naked Ape”"

quote: "If you can clairify how what you mean fits with ordinary zoological practice, that would be helpful. I can strongly recommend reading a classic nonfiction book, "The Naked Ape", by Desmond Morris, for a well-written zoologist's view of humans. You may not like it, but it is quite full of scientific facts and relevance to the overall discussion here. ESPECIALLY for anyone (not necessarily including you) who thinks that humans are not animals at their cores."

Felicity wrote: "If you believe the “personhood” of man MUST fit “ordinary zoological practice” you obviously believe that man does not TRANSCEND ordinary zoological practice."

I must apologize here, because I can't recall what I was driving at, when I asked for clarification in terms of ordinary zoological practice. But I can clairify my position regarding humans as animals.
The human body is 100% animal. The human mind is 90% or more animal, since mere animal minds do feature 90% or more of the things the human mind can do, if only to lesser degree.

I feel it is necessary to point the preceding out because on more than one occasion I have encountered a pro-life person who utterly rejects the notion that humans are animals, entirely because of that 10% or less which was left unspecified above. They need to look up the word "animal" in a dictionary.

 

[Felicity]

Felicity wrote: "Yes I can...The capacity sans illness or trauma is part of the "Everyman" of the species."

NOPE. See that word "capacity"? It means POTENTIAL. And we already know that potentials are not required to be fulfilled!

FI...that is just not so. Capacity is NOT synonymous with potential. Capacity means "ability," "capability," "the maximum amount able to be held or contained."

"Potentiality" is something you are imposing on the word--it implies a state prior, and a future possible state--while "capacity" implies a single state.

Degree-of-maturity is the thing that separates the actualized from the potential. THAT'S why it is important.

Since we agree potentiality is moot--this is irrelevant.

As I've already mentioned (not quoted), your current rights/privileges depend on your capabilities NOW, not what they might be later.

Again--potential being moot...however, rights do not depend on ANYTHING--rights are innate and based on moral principle. One doesn't "earn" a right--that contradicts what a right is. A right is an essential characteristic, it's inherent in the individual.

Privileges can be earned and conferred--but we are talking about the RIGHT to life. If you want to call it the privilege of life--that's a whole 'nother ball o' wax.

Also, this brings me back to any possible K-strategy intelligences. Those myriads-of-offspring-per-adult-per-breeding-season ALL have the "capacity" for adult capabilties.

sorry...you are misusing the word capacity--put in the word "ability" or "capabilities" where you have capacity and the error is clearer. Your baby squids have the potential for adult capabilities but their only "capacity" in life is squidhood--not personhood.

(Uh, do you know that "myriad" means 10,000?)

uh...okay...did you know "myriad of offspring" and "myriad offspring" are both grammatically correct? What's your point?

In seeking a UNIVERSALLY applicable definition of Person, try putting yourself mentally into their biological situation for a minute. THEY know that it is perfectly Natural for most of their tiny tiny offspring to get eaten,

No they don't. You are applying anthropomorphic qualities to squid. that's ridiculous! They don't "know" NUTHIN'.

out there in the wild, and THEY also know that the unfit get weeded out that way, and THEY also know that a few of those offspring will almost inevitably, on the average, survive the weeding, so THEY don't worry about going extinct.

This is just crazy! Does a squid "worry" about ANYTHING???? No--because a squid lacks the CAPACITY to conceptualize the abstract notion and extrapolate meaning from that notion to worry about!

(Only if some new factor threatens the normal survival percentage would they take some kind of protective action.) THEY will have chosen some development point after which offspring are able to join their society, and need appropriate education. THAT point is when the surviving youngsters start to qualify as Persons. And you can bet that the growth of a significant amount of brainpower, from an initial near-zero amount, is a critical part of becoming able to join that society.

Can you cite an animal species (not fictional) of the K-strategy in existence ON EARTH that has ever taken evasive action for their offspring as a CHOICE for future success for their offspring. (I don't know how you would prove a migration is a conscious mental decision of parent species for the betterment of their offspring--but whatever...)

OK, back to humans. Just because our R-strategy protects the offspring inside a womb, while growing from tiny-tiny to significant brainpower, that does not mean the undeveloped human is any more of a Person than the undeveloped K-strategy lifeform. Why should it be?

I've outlined several times over--refer to the "list" and look up "capacity."

I'm not sure that any episode featuring Mr. Data ever indicated that the possible choices he could make were limited to only the ones that logically followed from effects he had experienced (but I confess I haven't seen all the episodes).

The character was a robot--essentially hardware--and ultimately was limited by his programming. Even if there were infinite random possibilities--whatever "choice" the character could make--ultimately was the result of programming not self-sprung emotion or free will.

Next, while I'm on the topic of Artificial Intelligences, here is a nice little conundrum for you:

I'd really rather stay on topic....

If the research being devoted to Artificial Intelligence (or "AI") succeeds, then a human-level mind will come into existence ...........This leads us to an interesting absurdity, in that if opponents of abortion require every fetus to be allowed to automatically grow a mind, then logically they should also require Artifical Intelligences to be automatically manufactured just as soon as technically possible!

Because something CAN be done--doesn't mean it SHOULD be done. Hiroshima/Nagasaki?

The two notions really are that equivalent, and so to declare the mandatory production of AIs to be absurd is also to declare the anti-abortion stand to likewise be absurd. More specifically: Minds cannot be required to come into existence just because some of their fundamental hardware happens to exist.

The two notions are NOT equivalent. One is hardware--one is a being--with "rights." One is an object--the other a "person."

 

[Felicity]

Felicity wrote: "Rights are due based on moral principle--not what one can do or think or effect."


I see I neglected to respond to that point. Here
Are you not aware that "morals" are themselves immoral?.

It's that whole "nonsense" of Objectivity.:roll:

Someones "subjective" opinion of what is moral is MEANINGLESS!

What actually IS--is what matters--OBJECTIVELY. The truth is the truth despite anyone's opinion. Objective Truth is what counts.

Objectively--a human (at any stage of development and at any state of life) is a person with the inherent right to life.

 

[Felicity]

A Person is an individual, but an individual is not always a Person (individual ant, individual fish, individual bacterium...) I was being careful to use terminology that, just because a species may have certain relevant characteristics, does not imply all the individuals in that species have those characteristics. And, in fact for the human species, we KNOW that not all individuals have Free Will (the unborn, for example).

Again...not so...there are still individuals within a society of ants. You can't impose your own meaning on words or objective fact because you don't like the conclusion that must be drawn as a result of the objective truth. You are taking us back to the "potentiality" argument we agree is moot--human's have the CAPACITY of free will--not the potential for free will. The direction you are going is irrelevant.

I must apologize here, because I can't recall what I was driving at, when I asked for clarification in terms of ordinary zoological practice. But I can clairify my position regarding humans as animals.
The human body is 100% animal. The human mind is 90% or more animal, since mere animal minds do feature 90% or more of the things the human mind can do, if only to lesser degree.

Okay....that 5% of human that is not animal is what makes him a PERSON! We are in AGREEMENT, then?

 

[Felicity]

A Person is an individual, but an individual is not always a Person (individual ant, individual fish, individual bacterium...)

Again...not so...

Sorry--I misread what you said above--I agree with that whole thing...

I was being careful to use terminology that, just because a species may have certain relevant characteristics, does not imply all the individuals in that species have those characteristics.

This is the part I must qualify--to agree with...the species itself has the characteristics--not every individual within the species does--agreed.

And, in fact for the human species, we KNOW that not all individuals have Free Will (the unborn, for example).

This I DISagree with...Every human has the CAPACITY of free will--born and unborn--some humans cannot effect their free will because they lack the physical capability to make their will known--such is the case for the unborn. The unborn, by virtue of being a member of the human species--have in their possession the inherent "right" of free will. That is the distinction between such characteristics as short fur or long fur, or blue vs brown eyes and free will. The characteristic of free will is inherent to the species human. Simply because one cannot formulate, express, or effect free will does not strip the inherent philosophical truth of free will from the individual. Free will is part of the nature of man.

 

[FutureIncoming]

To Felicity:
Regarding "capacity" and "potential", there is an oddness here:
From www.dictionary.com:
ca·pac·i·ty Audio pronunciation of "capacity" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (k-ps-t)
n. pl. ca·pac·i·ties
1. A. The ability to receive, hold, or absorb.
1. B. Abbr. c. A measure of this ability; volume.
2. The maximum amount that can be contained: a trunk filled to capacity.
3. A. Ability to perform or produce; capability.
3. B. The maximum or optimum amount that can be produced: factories operating below capacity.
4. The power to learn or retain knowledge; mental ability.
5. Innate potential for growth, development, or accomplishment; faculty. See Synonyms at ability.
6. The quality of being suitable for or receptive to specified treatment: the capacity of elastic to be stretched.
7. The position in which one functions; role: in your capacity as sales manager.
8. Legal qualification or authority: the capacity to make an arrest.
9. Electricity. Capacitance.

{and}
po·ten·tial Audio pronunciation of "potential" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (p-tnshl)
adj.
1. Capable of being but not yet in existence; latent: a potential problem.
2. Having possibility, capability, or power.
3. Grammar. Of, relating to, or being a verbal construction with auxiliaries such as may or can; for example, it may snow.
n.
1. The inherent ability or capacity for growth, development, or coming into being.
2. Something possessing the capacity for growth or development.
3. Grammar. A potential verb form.
4. Physics. The work required to move a unit of positive charge, a magnetic pole, or an amount of mass from a reference point to a designated point in a static electric, magnetic, or gravitational field; potential energy.
5. See potential difference (voltage).

{and from www.thesaurus.com}
Main Entry: capacity
Part of Speech: noun 1
Definition: volume
Synonyms: accommodation, amplitude, bulk, burden, chock full, compass, contents, dimensions, expanse, extent, full, holding ability, holding power, jam-packed, latitude, magnitude, mass, measure, proportions, quantity, range, reach, retention, room, sardined, scope, size, space, spread, sufficiency, sweep

Main Entry: capacity
Part of Speech: noun 2
Definition: ability
Synonyms: adequacy, aptitude, aptness, bent, brains, caliber, capability, cleverness, compass, competence, competency, efficiency, facility, faculty, forte, genius, gift, inclination, intelligence, knack, might, power, qualification, readiness, skill, stature, strength, talent

{and}
Main Entry: potential
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: possibility
Synonyms: ability, aptitude, capability, capacity, potentiality, power, the makings, wherewithal
====================

The oddness is that the thesaurus makes "capacity" a synonym of "potential", but not vice-versa, while the dictionary does imply they are synonymous both ways. This is inconsistent support for what I what I wrote earlier, about them being synonmous. However, "capacity" DOES require that specific abilities be available RIGHT NOW, not later. Thus, while you can use the word "capacity" in describing any not-fully-developed individual, to reference current abilities, you cannot use that same word to imply abilities that are not yet there, without invoking the word-that-should-be-avoided, "potential".

 

[Felicity]

However, "capacity" DOES require that specific abilities be available RIGHT NOW, not later.

Sure, yes, agreed....and EVERY human has the CAPACITY right now of free will--it is INHERENT in the nature of man.

 

[FutureIncoming]

Felicity quoted: " Also, this brings me back to any possible K-strategy intelligences."

Felicity wrote: "Your baby squids have the potential for adult capabilities but their only "capacity" in life is squidhood--not personhood." {and} "No they don't. You are applying anthropomorphic qualities to squid. that's ridiculous! They don't "know" NUTHIN'."


Hmmmm...did you not see my earlier message, #423, where I wrote that we do not know enough yet about giant squid to say whether or not they are not people? Ordinary squid, like octopi, do not appear to qualify. But giant squid have been eluding proper scientific analysis. Simply because it is not impossible, I decided to assume for the discussion (and as phrased in the topmost quote), that we could talk about an actually-intelligent species with K-strategy reproduction. Even if only hypothetical, as long as they have the intelligence, THEY (the adults) WILL INDEED KNOW VARIOUS THINGS, such as I described.

 

[FutureIncoming]

Felicity wrote: " Sure, yes, agreed....and EVERY human has the CAPACITY right now of free will--it is INHERENT in the nature of man."

FALSE LOGIC. No human of young-fetus age has any abiltiy to invoke free will, if for no other reason that the brainpower to make decisions is nonexistent. Per the definitions, the ability has to be present before it can be included in an individual's total capacity.

 

[Felicity]

Even if only hypothetical, as long as they have the intelligence, THEY (the adults) WILL INDEED KNOW VARIOUS THINGS, such as I described.

keyword: "hypothetical"

 

[Felicity]

FALSE LOGIC. No human of young-fetus age has any abiltiy to invoke free will, if for no other reason that the brainpower to make decisions is nonexistent. Per the definitions, the ability has to be present before it can be included in an individual's total capacity.

Free will is the experience of the "Everyman" of the human species. It is present in the "Everyman" RIGHT NOW.

It's INTRINSIC INHERENT FUNDEMENTAL ELEMENTAL....what aren't you getting?

 

[Felicity]

The human mind is 90% or more animal, since mere animal minds do feature 90% or more of the things the human mind can do, if only to lesser degree.

So explain that other 10% of the human mind--WHAT IS IT?

 

[Felicity]

I'm waiting for a pro-lifer to take up this challenge:

BTW--you're not waiting anymore....we are in the midst of it--and I believe pretty much at the end of it.

 

[Felicity]

ca·pac·i·ty Audio pronunciation of "capacity" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (k-ps-t)
n. pl. ca·pac·i·ties

5. Innate potential for growth, development, or accomplishment; faculty. See Synonyms at ability.


po·ten·tial Audio pronunciation of "potential" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (p-tnshl)

1. The inherent ability or capacity for growth, development, or coming into being.

Clear 'nuff???

 

[FutureIncoming]

Felicity quoted: "FALSE LOGIC. No human of young-fetus age has any abiltiy to invoke free will, if for no other reason that the brainpower to make decisions is nonexistent. Per the definitions, the ability has to be present before it can be included in an individual's total capacity."

Felicity wrote: "Free will is the experience of the "Everyman" of the human species. It is present in the "Everyman" RIGHT NOW.
It's INTRINSIC INHERENT FUNDEMENTAL ELEMENTAL....what aren't you getting?"


I am "getting" that you are still trying to claim that for example/analogy, an armless Human A has Human B's abilities to throw a fastball. That is, to the extent that free will is part of a developed mind's repertiore, you cannot claim that every undeveloped mind also has it. (more on this below)



Felicity quoted: "The human mind is 90% or more animal, since mere animal minds do feature 90% or more of the things the human mind can do, if only to lesser degree. "

Felicity wrote: "So explain that other 10% of the human mind--WHAT IS IT?"


Well, first please note that the 90% is a guess, and probably conservative (95% may be more accurate). But that is a quibble, and I'll continue to play with 90%/10% here. So, let me take a minute to describe the evolutionary development of the brain. Even if you already know this stuff, others might not, and it is quite relevant.

For an in-depth anatomical description, try this:
http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/C/CNS.html
I'm going to present a simplified and more-historical description, so here is a slightly relevant page on evolution:
http://www.ncseweb.org/icons/icon2tol.html


First, there was the "notochord". In paleobiology and zoology, the anatomical feature that eventually became the spine, and which supports the spinal cord, allows the "chordate" group to be defined. While I think that the nervous system of chordates has always been associated with the notochord, I'm not positive. Anyway, the spinal cord has some (not a lot) real signal processing power; if you prick your finger and jerk your hand back, the processing between prick and jerk was done at the spine. Saves time and gives an evolutionary advantage over sending the signal to the brain for processing.

Then came the what has been called the "reptilian brain", although of course early versions of this are found in fish and amphibians. This mostly controls fundamentally important stuff like heartbeat and breathing and digestion. Since evolution works as much by adding features to already-existing features, as it does by modifying existing features, the reptilian brain developed as close as possible to the organism's sensory system (again, slower-processing designs lost out), while sitting at one end of the spinal cord allowed easy access to the main signal highway to the rest of the body. The reptilian brain also includes an additional section ("cerebellum") which deals with body movement.

Next, the "mammalian brain" or "cerebrum" grew to surround the reptilian brain, and offered greater volition and finer control over body motions. It could be that to the extent any mammal ever exhibits some semblance of Free Will (playfulness), it originates here. A significant learning capacity (but the cerebellum has some of that, too) also originates here, along with some reasoning ability (not a lot).

Finally came the "primate brain" or "cortex". Clever as they are, dolphins and other cetaceans don't have this. (I won't discuss squid or octopi; they are not even chordates (in the mollusc phylum they are), and they got all their smarts in some entirely different evolutionary way, about which I know nothing.) The cortex gives humans a wide range of personalities, advanced reasoning skills, and the power of judgement, especially including self-doubt. This is associated with the ability to imagine self in the situation of another (can't objectively judge self from the inside).

With the preceding as background, the first important thing to keep in mind is that AS THE HUMAN ORGANISM GROWS, the brain tends to develop one-section-at-a-time. Key defining traits of the human mind just don't exist in a young fetus, because the brain cells "behind" those traits don't exist, either.

The fun begins when the drinking starts. Alcohol is a depressant that reduces the effectiveness of brainpower. And the most interesting thing is the ORDER in which increased alcohol consumption shuts down the brain: Exactly backward to the sequence of evolutionary development! The first thing to go is self-judgement, and so naturally the average drunk is difficult to convince that he's had enough. Personality changes and fine muscle control disappears. (If you have heard stories about how, when a drunk learned to do something, but could only remember when he got drunk again, that would be the mammalian or even the reptilian brain doing the learning, and not the cortex.) As you know, unconsciousness can happen after drinking even more. The last thing to go (and it WILL go if enough alcohol is imbibed) is the life-support control system in the reptilian brain, leading to death.

Finally, and regarding that 10%, while I can't say for certain what they are, it is simply logical to assume that they are among the last-GROWN of abilities. No other mammal grows the last-evolved features of the human brain --and humans don't grow them either, until after much previous growth has been done. (Note that to the extent that dolphins, for example, exhibit many advanced mental qualities, it happens that these are all rooted in a significantly larger cerebrum.)

 

[Felicity]

I am "getting" that you are still trying to claim that for example/analogy, an armless Human A has Human B's abilities to throw a fastball.

Does an individual person have a "right" to the ability to throw a ball? No. But the human species does have the ability generally. A human person DOES have the right to DESIRE the ability to throw a ball, though--because they have free will. If an individual is unaware of the possibility of throwing a ball--the individual may never actually throw a ball--or even desire it--however--the RIGHT to imagine the possibility to do so is unaffected.

 

[vergiss]

Sorry, but that made no sense whatsoever.

 

[FutureIncoming]

Felicity wrote: "Does an individual person have a "right" to the ability to throw a ball? No. But the human species does have the ability generally. A human person DOES have the right to DESIRE the ability to throw a ball, though--because they have free will. If an individual is unaware of the possibility of throwing a ball--the individual may never actually throw a ball--or even desire it--however--the RIGHT to imagine the possibility to do so is unaffected."


Please be careful about how the word "right" is used. For example, in Message #438 Felicity wrote: "Someones "subjective" opinion of what is moral is MEANINGLESS!
What actually IS--is what matters--OBJECTIVELY. The truth is the truth despite anyone's opinion. Objective Truth is what counts.
Objectively--a human (at any stage of development and at any state of life) is a person with the inherent right to life."


FutureIncoming wrote a bunch of stuff about objectivity and rights in Message #428, which you might examine, and possibly comment upon. To that I will add this:

In Nature there is granted to Life exactly ONE fundamental/objective Right. This is a "right to try". The very process of Living is the process of trying to survive from one instant to the next. BUT, most importantly, there is NO objective right to succeed! Nowhere, nohow, and no way. That's just the way it is.

Life, of course, is biased to keep trying, regardless. If it failed it would be dead, obviously. So life-forms exhibit all sorts of behaviors to enhance their survival. Flight-or-fight. Sporulation, estivation, anti-freeze generation, and other forms of stasis. Both K and R reproductive strategies. Even addiction can be traced to a survival strategy (the drugs wouldn't be addictive if the brain didn't have the capacity for it), which is that if sex is addictive, the more offspring a creature is likely to leave behind, compared to a creature that merely gets a pleasure-reward from sex.

Finally, and quite naturally, humans, being life-forms with a built-in bias to survive, also have various ways to try to ensure personal and/or species survival. Equally naturally, different humans are biased in different directions. For some, obtaining an abortion supports/eases personal survival. For others, opposing abortion promotes species survival. And all sorts claims fly, based on the biases. For example, making up non-existent "rights" to support opposition to abortion....

 

[Felicity]

In Nature there is granted to Life exactly ONE fundamental/objective Right. This is a "right to try". The very process of Living is the process of trying to survive from one instant to the next. BUT, most importantly, there is NO objective right to succeed! Nowhere, nohow, and no way. That's just the way it is.

Life, of course, is biased to keep trying, regardless. If it failed it would be dead, obviously.

Do you not recognize that in what you wrote that I have quoted above--you, YOURSELF--have provided a portion of the reasoning WHY ABORTION IS MORALLY WRONG? You have generalized it to all life, but nonetheless--it is the reasoning behind the objection.

Specifically--new human life is actively thwarted in the womb--it is not given the right to "try." By "actively," I mean another (other than the life itself) has taken action to deny that right to the life. If somehow the life dies by accident or illness--that is an uncontrolled circumstance--it had the chance, but circumstances were such that it was not successful. Purposeful ending of a life at the hands of another life, is subject to morality.

The morality of the issue comes in when one argues how humans are different from other life (plants, animals) such that what you call "the right to try" needs protection. That is where the definition of personhood comes in. We're starting to go in circles because you have failed to address specifically my assertions that specify WHY human life is to be valued above plants and animals. Again. The "list."

 

[Felicity]

Sorry, but that made no sense whatsoever.

Read it again--it does in context of the discussion.

 

[FutureIncoming]

Felicity quoted: "In Nature there is granted to Life exactly ONE fundamental/objective Right. This is a "right to try". The very process of Living is the process of trying to survive from one instant to the next. BUT, most importantly, there is NO objective right to succeed! Nowhere, nohow, and no way. That's just the way it is.
Life, of course, is biased to keep trying, regardless. If it failed it would be dead, obviously."

Felicity wrote: "Do you not recognize that in what you wrote that I have quoted above--you, YOURSELF--have provided a portion of the reasoning WHY ABORTION IS MORALLY WRONG? You have generalized it to all life, but nonetheless--it is the reasoning behind the objection.
Specifically--new human life is actively thwarted in the womb--it is not given the right to "try.""


NOPE, sorry, you are confusing "right to try" with "right to succeed". All the bacteria on your skin have a right to try to explosively reproduce and consume your flesh. It is not inaccurate to say voracious feeding and reproduction is their "purpose in life", for at least some of them. NONE has a right to succeed, and so your skin actively exercises its right to try to keep them out, and eating each other instead. Of course, your skin has no right to succeed either, and occasional piercings and usually minor infections (as other defenses in your body, and the invading bacteria, both exercise their "purposes", or competing rights to try) is proof of that. No decent-sized animal lives though a single day without being equivalently victorious over hordes of mini and micro organisms, and ALL, large and small, have an EQUAL right to try --and all DO try-- and ZERO right to succeed. That's just the way it is.

The unborn getting killed by abortion is merely the mother exercising her right to try (in this case, to not give birth, because "try" is ultimately nonspecific about what is being tried). Yes, I fully understand this is a "might makes right" sort of thing, and hence is something about which wariness is in order. Among PERSONS, "might makes right" is a problem because persons need to get along with each other. But until there is proof that the unborn also qualifies as a person, "getting along" is not necessary (its not even possible). The unborn human takes whatever it wants from its mother's body, without regard for the consequences...and abortion when the mother's life is endangered has long been accepted. There is no way to make a deal with the unborn, to ease its natural voraciousness for growth. Persons can get along with each other because they can agree to fair deals, and so "might makes right" is usually unnecessary. The unborn just isn't ABLE to make any deals, and so "might makes right" is the ONLY way to handle it, exactly the way we handle any other non-person (animal).

Finally, I have indeed addressed your "list" and found it wanting. It does not apply to the mindless. And, also, the valuation of human life is (1) Subjective instead of Objective, and (2) mistaken. I'll offer evidence of (2) in my next Message.

 

[FutureIncoming]

One of the foundations upon which opponents of abortion build their argument is the claim that human life has inherent value that should be respected. But is that a true statement? How is "value" determined, anyway? Answer: Value is actually never an inherent quality of anything; the value of something is always defined in terms of associations with other things. Here are some items of supporting evidence:

First, the Law of Supply and Demand studies the association between a single item and a group of items of the same type. How large is the group? Given constant demand, then the larger the group (the supply), the less-valuable the individual item is declared to be, and vice-versa. And does the Law of Supply and Demand apply to humans? In a restricted way, YES. Human labor is very much subject to this Law. It is quite well documented that when labor for a particular task is plentiful, humans who demand high wages for doing that task tend to find themselves unemployed. And certainly when only a few humans can do a particular task, they are often both well-paid and also given the task of training more humans to do it...thereby eventually and obviously diminishing the value of their labor! --Which in turn leads to a conundrum, because human life must be sustained in order for it to continue to yield labor. The claim that human life is inherently valuable should thereby and obviously be bolstered by actions everywhere ensuring that a minimum wage exists for labor, such that that wage is always at least enough to sustain human life. However, the fact is, a great many people who have time-and-again acted to oppose a minimum wage also happen to claim to oppose abortion on value-of-life grounds. Well, if "actions speak louder than words", then the actions of those people falsify their claim.

Second, throughout history numerous attempts were made to "fix" the price of gold, to make it a monetary standard. This never worked over the long term, and today not only does the price of gold "float" in accordance with the Law of Supply and Demand, so do the relative (associative) values of practically all the world's currencies. Similarly, human life has time and again been assigned associative values, especially in times of extreme struggle. "Women and children first!" is a motto embraced by all cultures that have survived the long haul, simply because children are the future of a culture, and women can both teach and make more children -- consider the possible culture-recovering/growth speed of two groups of survivors, one group consisting of ten men and one woman, while the other group consists of ten women and one man. So, if the lives of adult human males are assigned a low relative value in times of struggle, when it is traditional for them to sacrifice themselves to ensure women and children survive (for an extreme example of this, study the history of Paraguay, its wars, population level, and changing male/female ratio), then by no means can it be claimed that human life has some inherent fixed value.
Interestingly, it might be noted that if children can be considered more valuable than adult males, then a fetus also might be considered more valuable than an abortion doctor. However, such a conclusion fails to take into account the specified/associative magnitude-and-type-of-struggle. Abortion might indeed be utterly prohibitable when cultural survival is at stake -- or abortion might actually be declared an essential part of an overall effort to prevent an overpopulation-caused Malthusian Catastrophe. The history of Easter Island proves that humans are indeed as subject to the observations of Thomas Malthus as any other animal; it is just that with "Island Earth" being so much bigger, the crux takes longer to reach. Also, there are two other reasons why fetuses can be assigned a low value. One involves associating them with the quantity of biological resources that have been "invested" in them -- the older they are, the more resources have been invested (including patience of the mothers), and this investment only increases after birth and throughout childhood -- while when young-enough for a morning after pill to be effective, the quantity of invested resources is trivial. The other reason notes that aborted or miscarried fetuses are generally easy to replace (not necessarily by the same women, admittedly), and the current Malthus-challenging global population explosion, in spite of the number of abortions performed annually worldwide, is proof enough of that statement.

Third, almost every life-form has a built-in survival instinct. This is a simple consequence of the obvious fact that failures at survival tended not to pass their genes (and associated behavior patterns) on to the next generation. Humans are in the unique position of being able to make choices different from those dictated by instinct. Thus while perception of the survival instinct is common among humans, and frequently that perception leads to survival-promoting choices, often enough the perception is ignored in favor of other desires. Skydiving for fun is an example of that. Nevertheless, skydivers do take precautions to promote their survival, and often enough those precautions are adequate. The point here is that whenever a human chooses to act in a way that promotes survival of the body, even if only by taking precautions prior to indulging in something as life-threatening as skydiving, that human is acknowledging an association between that body and the mind making the choice. The existence of the mind depends on the continuing life of the body, so obviously it behooves the mind to value the life highly enough to take the precautions!
That entirely subjective perception and valuation is typically extrapolated, thanks to another unique trait of humans. The ability of one human to mentally place self into a situation being experienced by another human is something no animal can do. And therefore most humans expect other humans to value their own lives in a similar way. Nevertheless, that valuation remains entirely subjective and is not at all objective, as is evidenced by many troubles in History, which have been caused by humans who valued their own lives, but not the lives of others. Isn't it logical to deduce that if human life was objectively valuable, there would have been fewer historic cases in which that value was ignored (fewer murders and more ransoms)? Instead, the millenia-old slavery trade simply proved that humans value other humans subjectively, since slave auctions existed to get the most from whoever subjectively valued slaves the highest -- and it was not really the slaves that were valued, anyway, but what those slaves could do (labor) for their owners.
The ability to put self in another's place can, like any other ability, be misused. To mentally put oneself in the physical situation of a horse is not to naturally interpret that situation in the same way as a horse, after all -- so abusing the ability in this instance would involve incorrectly claiming to fully understand the horse's mentality. And, by extension, the magnitude of misuse only increases as the mentaltiy of the other creature diminishes. When the creature has practically no mentality at all, such as a several-month's-old fetus, it would be pure folly to claim it has any understanding and valuation of its own existence. And it happens that not even the staunchest defenders of a fetus make such a claim. Instead they make the equally erroneous claim that human life has inherent/objective value. Even though the evidence is entirely against them.

Obviously the preceding can be called a rationale for humans to continue to do ill unto each other -- simply because nothing of inherent/objective value gets damaged thereby -- just as many humans have done innumerable times throughout History. However, anyone who starts to choose to accept such a rationale needs to be prepared for the corollary: If you think human life is objectively worthless, then your life is objectively worthless, too. Any ill you dish out to others you should expect to receive in kind -- simple "Golden Rule" stuff. So, to whatever extent you don't want to receive ills from others, that is the extent to which you should refrain from dishing ills out. While cultures and societies find it convenient to make arbitrary declarations such as "human life is inherently valuable" to simplify teaching humans behavior patterns that permit those cultures and societies to persist over the long haul, such simplifications always also lead to other problems, such as, in this case, giving opponents of abortion a false basis for their arguments. Better it is to explain the practicalities that keep a culture going in a way that directly involves the individual ("you will deserve to receive whatever ills you dish out"). And this leads us also to the conclusion that simply because a fetus has not the brainpower to value its own existence, that's why behaviors toward the fetus need not be the same as behaviors towards humans who do have that brainpower.

 

[Felicity]

First—I think you could be more succinct in your writing. You go all over the place—and though you may ascribe to “might makes right” in the abortion debate, “might” in the form of excessive words merely appears to me to be an attempt to hide your defeat in the debate among lots and lots o’ words....

Second—I do not see ANYWHERE that you address the answer to your challenge (AKA the “list.”) Would you be so kind as to highlight where you specifically address “self-will” and “extrapolation of the abstract” as it relates to PERSONHOOD in comparison to animals. I see you mention the terms—but not in relation to how that denies personhood to the human species as dictated via the “list.”

Please take into account where I addressed those portions where you use the "words" but don't get to the argument.

 

[Felicity]

No decent-sized animal lives though a single day without being equivalently victorious over hordes of mini and micro organisms, and ALL, large and small, have an EQUAL right to try --and all DO try-- and ZERO right to succeed. That's just the way it is.

okay...they are ANIMALS not PERSONS.

Among PERSONS, "might makes right" is a problem because persons need to get along with each other. But until there is proof that the unborn also qualifies as a person, "getting along" is not necessary (its not even possible).

So you recognize people are persons as compared to animals? What do you say qualifies an adult human as a person—but not a preborn human? What is the distinction to you?

Finally, I have indeed addressed your "list" and found it wanting. It does not apply to the mindless.

Your statement that it does not apply to the mindless is totally not at all what I have said from the BEGINNING. I have said that it is the species of man himself—by virtue of HIS NATURE—HIS NATURE—HIS NATURE—all that he is, was, and will be.....the BEING: MAN. Thus EVERY being that is man has human nature—and it is the NATURE that ensures his worth.

And, also, the valuation of human life is (1) Subjective instead of Objective, and (2) mistaken. I'll offer evidence of (2) in my next Message.

Subjective if you look at it from a “functionality” perspective—Objective if you respect the Truth of his nature. You do the former—I am presenting the latter.

 

[Felicity]

One of the foundations upon which opponents of abortion build their argument is the claim that human life has inherent value that should be respected. But is that a true statement? How is "value" determined, anyway? Answer: Value is actually never an inherent quality of anything; the value of something is always defined in terms of associations with other things.

Not “INTRINSIC” value. Not “INHERENT” value. Do you need to look up those words too?

Look—I believe that inherent and intrinsic value stems from our Creator—but I offered a reason that does not REQUIRE a creator to exist that explains the difference between man and animal that still allows for the valuation of human life at every stage. It is the philosophical explanation of the NATURE of EVERYMAN specific to his difference from Everyanimal. You keep writing A LOT in an effort to dance around that assertion I have made—how about sucking it up and specifically addressing THAT single issue? Drop all your little anecdotes and references and just cut to the quick—you’re not writing a dissertation for cripe’s sake—you’re on a freaking debate forum! It’s the red headed step-child of formal debate—stop gussying her up in your expository tiaras and get yer muck boots on! Be concise, clear, and have the courage of your convictions (if you still believe them yourself).

The claim that human life is inherently valuable should thereby and obviously be bolstered by actions everywhere ensuring that a minimum wage exists for labor, such that that wage is always at least enough to sustain human life. However, the fact is, a great many people who have time-and-again acted to oppose a minimum wage also happen to claim to oppose abortion on value-of-life grounds. Well, if "actions speak louder than words", then the actions of those people falsify their claim.

Intrinsic value—not acquired value. Inherent value—not determined value.
The reason people are not valued as they ought is due to man’s FREE WILL. Because man has free will he can choose to act in such a way that is contrary to justice or he can act to rectify an injustice. Desire for such abstract concepts as power and wealth lead the free will to act or not act as one chooses. You are ultimately supporting the perspective I am presenting by your examples.

So, if the lives of adult human males are assigned a low relative value in times of struggle,

Intrinsic value—not assigned value. How one perceives another is the CHOICE that is made by that individual.

or abortion might actually be declared an essential part of an overall effort to prevent an overpopulation

Do you live in China? Do you support their human rights “values?”

the older they are, the more resources have been invested (including patience of the mothers), and this investment only increases after birth and throughout childhood -- while when young-enough for a morning after pill to be effective, the quantity of invested resources is trivial.

So you are against euthanasia? based on your “economy of the human person?”