Scientific Abortion Laws

Scientific Abortion Laws

The natural abortion laws site

My response to the Toronto Students for Life

University of Toronto Students for Life said:  Hi Russell,

“Thanks for taking the time to comment. I’m not sure if I follow your logic though.”

Thank you for answering. I can help you understand the logic.

“1) If you’re not sure whether “the product of conception” is alive,”
A fraction of the products of conception are alive and will live to birth. Only 30 percent =/_ will live to birth.

“what else could “the product of conception” be?”

The POC (product of conception) could be non-human life (life incapable of living as a human).

“Dead? If it’s growing, isn’t it alive?”

Not everything that is dead was at one time growing. The problem is found in the zygote uncertainty principle. Because of the location of the DNA one cannot tell if it replicated and did not create life or if it replicated and then did live. There is simply no way to tell. The DNA itself, without its replication process, could be said to have never lived.
On a larger scale, we are talking about a product of conception that is not human and cannot live as a human. The human body has a process whereby it checks the DNA of every cell and if that DNA cannot live as a human, it is destroyed and reabsorbed into the body. So it is not me or any other human that decides it is human life, it is the body that makes that determination. The determination by the organism that the life cannot live as human life can occur right up too and after birth.

“2) Whether or not a child will live to birth doesn’t tell us anything about whether or not a child is a human being who deserves human rights.”
You are making the false assumption that every pair of gametes will produce  a “child” that is human. You have no reason to believe such a thing. The fact is that more products of conception will die than will live and that more will not have enough human DNA than will be born as humans. Because non human life does not have human rights, your assumption fails.

” It would just tell us something about the lifespan of a particular human being.”
No, there is no human being until the body confirms there is a human life. At no point prior to birth is the zygote/embryo/fetus certain to be capable of human life. Even one second before birth there is a 1 percent chance the fetus is incapable of life due to genetic flaw or that it will die for other reasons.  The great error here is in your willingness to remove rights from a real human on the incorrect theory that there may be some human life. There is a born human life, according to the “Law of Charity” that needs to be saved at every instant of time. Rather than focusing on saving a non human or potential human life, one should save real born human life.

“But, our human rights aren’t determined by how long we’re going to live, are they?”

That is true for proved human life only.

“Rather, aren’t human rights dependent on whether or not we are human beings?”

Human rights are “made up” by men and are not uniform. A person can pass a law that says that life begins at any point in the cycle of life. You can for example pass a law that says that life begins at conception, even though it would be false. More life at conception is not human (42%) than will be born human (30%).


“Why is living to birth relevant?”

Four processes essential for human life must change at birth. If the DNA that drives those changes is not human enough to result in birth, then the fetus would have never been human enough to live as a human.

“3) I have no idea what you mean by “has enough human DNA to live as a human.” Can you explain?”
To produce an adult human the process involves building 100 trillion cells most containing diploid chromosomes and averaging 100 trillion atoms per cell (10^28 atoms) packed in the correct order, whereby the human genotype yields the correct phenotype. Anywhere along the path to adulthood the DNA can have errors in replication caused by outside forces such as chemicals or radiation. Those errors at any point can cause the DNA, cell or life in general to die.
The human body including the DNA has the ability to self check the DNA and cells and determine which cells or DNA will lead to life and which are incompatible with life. With respect to DNA, there is a check system that will correct many errors in replication and destroy any DNA, cells, etc. with errors. Many times the errors are so great that the DNA cannot be repaired and therefore is destroyed by the mtDNA or by other forces in the body. In such a case the determination as to whether or not there is “human life” capable of living is determined at the atomic, DNA, cell or organ level and is not under the control of any intentional choice or action by a sentient human mind.



“(a) How do you measure “how much” human DNA someone has? Can you have 50% or 30% human DNA?”
An Ape has about 95% =/- similar DNA as a human. (The photo above is of an Ape fetus.) So I doubt that any organism could claim to be human that has less human type DNA than the Ape.

” Are you concerned a pre-born child with human parents might actually be a chimpanzee or a fish or a giraffe rather than a human being?”

No, that would be unlikely.

“If someone has human parents, aren’t they human?”
Yes.

“I don’t follow what you mean.”

You don’t follow because you are looking at life from a retrospective view. Every born human was at one time a viable zygote and is in fact human. For that reason you will always be correct from the retrospective view in saying that life began at conception. Retrospectively speaking one can pick any point and say that it is the “beginning” of life. Using a retrospective view, one could choose puberty as the beginning of life and define life from that point forward as the point where life began. Any point makes sense retrospectively because you know for a fact you started with a human life.

However life is created prospectively, not retrospectively. One does not know and cannot know where it began. All one can do is say that any particular individual life certainly did not begin at any one point from a prospective view. We have an idea that life began 3.5 billion years ago and evolved into human life along with all other life forms.


“(b) What do you mean by “live as a human.” Isn’t the question simply whether someone *is* a human?”

If a product of conception could have never lived as a human, it is no more human than an Ape.

“Human beings have human rights, don’t they?”

We self define rights we have. We don’t have “human rights” that are not created by humans. Human rights vary with human whim.

“Or are you saying that you can *be* a human, but not be able “to live as a human”?”

If a product of conception cannot live as a human because of genetic flaws, then it is not human enough to live as a human as determined by the internal DNA checking process or the cellular process then it is not human. If it cannot live as a human, then it is not human.

“How exactly do you mean?”

Until the DNA of the genotype expresses the correct phenotype there is no human life.


“4) The science of fertilization is not controversial at all.”

It is your personal view and beliefs related to the process of fertilization that is controversial, not the science involved. The textbook is a retrospective view. And that is an accurate view from the point where you know there is already a human life.

“In the basic developmental biology classes here at U of T, we use the popular Scott F. Gilbert text, which opens the chapter 7 (titled “Fertilization: Beginning a new organism”) with the following statement:
“””
Fertilization is the process whereby two sex cells (gametes) fuse together to create a new individual with a genome derived from both parents. Fertilization accomplishes two separate ends: sex (the combining of genes derived from two parents) and reproduction (the creation of a new organism).”

The statement above is absolutely correct from a retrospective view. The author already knows there is human life and the life was living. He traced back the life to the fertilization process and stated that the particular life in question began at that point. I agree fully.

“Are you suggesting that basic BIO101 textbooks all have this wrong?”

No, I agree with the retrospective view of the book.

“When do you suggest we have a new organism, scientifically speaking? On what authority?”

I agree fully that from a retrospective view where one knows that a baby existed and one traces back the history of the genome of the baby, it can be said to have began its individual life at fertilization. However, life does not begin retrospectively, life begins prospectively and there is no point at which any individual human can be said to begin from a prospective view. From a retrospective view I could say life started at implantation, puberty or over a glass of wine and be as correct as saying that life began at fertilization. For you life began at fertilization because retrospectively it makes good sense to you. However, prospectively the idea that life begins at conception fails simply because most conceptions die and many are not human life.

I hope you till take the information in this post and the information on my site http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com and change your pro life stance that causes death and instead join me is saving the most life possible.

 

 

20 Responses to My response to the Toronto Students for Life

  1. On February 3, 2014 at 7:59 pm http://www.hillviewavionics.com/newport-cigarettes/ said:

    http://www.hillviewavionics.com/newport-cigarettes/

    From the 18th century, weight problems was considered not just unattractive and morally slack, but distinctly comedian. Significant crowds travelled to marvel at such prodigies of fatness as Edward Vibrant, an Essex grocer who weighed 44st, and whose c…

    Permalink
  2. On February 2, 2014 at 10:24 pm cheap cigarettes online said:

    cheap cigarettes online

    She specialises in the treacherous halfpipe competitors, which involves a collection of spectacular jumps in the lip of the deep, snowcovered channel.

    Permalink
  3. On December 9, 2013 at 11:23 pm balleyne said:

    You are making several different arguments. I’ll respond to a few key points in an effort to establish some clarity on exactly what it is you are saying.

    “Until the DNA of the genotype expresses the correct phenotype there is no human life.”

    At what point in pregnancy does that typically happen?

    To what scientific authority are you appealing? Can you direct me to the appropriate scientific literature?

    “More life at conception is not human (42%) than will be born human (30%).”

    Are you saying that the organism that comes into existence in the process of fertilization is not a member of the human species, but later becomes a member? If so, at what point does an organism change species?

    To what scientific authority are you appealing? Can you point me to the scientific literature that makes this argument?

    “incapable of living as a human”

    You keep repeating this phrase, but it sounds pretty novel. Can you please point me to a place in the scientific literature that explains and supports what you mean?

    “Rather than focusing on saving a non human or potential human life, one should save real born human life.”

    We need ethical clarity when we discuss these matters. The question of elective abortion is not a question of whether or not we should *save* a life, but whether or not we should *take* a life.

    We’re not talking about miscarriage. We’re not talking about saving the life of someone in danger. We’re talking about whether or not it is morally permissible to *create* danger, to *cause* mortal danger — to directly and intentionally kill another innocent member of the human species through a surgical abortion, which decapitates, dismembers and disembowels a pre-born child, or a medical abortion which poisons them.

    “Only 30 percent =/_ will live to birth.”

    Again, we need clear thinking. What percentage of human offspring live until 3 months after birth? Or 3 months before birth? Or their 15th birthday? You raise a question of *lifespan*. Are you suggesting that how long someone will live should determine the question of whether or not we should kill them? How is how long someone will live *morally* relevant? How does it answer the question of whether or not we should decapitate, dismember and disembowel them?

    Or you think someone’s lifespan ought to determine their right to life?

    “We self define rights we have. We don’t have “human rights” that are not created by humans. Human rights vary with human whim.”

    So, you aren’t in favour of human rights then? You don’t believe that human beings have any inherent rights?

    Let me ask another way: Do you think it would be wrong for somebody to kill you? If so, why?

    In trying to follow what your saying, I think it might be helpful to approach things from the other direction too. Are you in favour of partial-birth abortion? Do you still find it hard to determine the humanity of a pre-born child that late in pregnancy?

    Lastly, I keep asking to what scientific authority you are appealing, but you’ve only linked to your own website, and an opinion piece on another blog. I’ve referenced the Gilbert text, but this article does a decent job of summarizing the science (check the footnotes for the references): http://www.l4l.org/library/mythfact.html#2

    Permalink
    • On December 10, 2013 at 9:47 pm Russell Crawford said:

      “You are making several different arguments. I’ll respond to
      a few key points in an effort to establish some clarity on exactly what it is
      you are saying.”

      Abortion is a complicated issue. I think
      I can clarify this issue for you. I will also see if I can straighten out the
      information in the links you provide.

      I said: “Until the DNA of the genotype expresses the correct
      phenotype there is no human life.”

      You said: “At what point in pregnancy does that typically
      happen?”

      The phenotype cannot be confirmed to be fully capable of birth, life and
      reproduction until some time after birth. That is why I suggest that the proper
      point is birth. In my mind, if it can be born as human, it is human.

      “To what scientific authority are you appealing? Can you
      direct me to the appropriate scientific literature?”

      Links are found on my web page. But it is general knowledge that DNA yields RNA
      that produces proteins that produce the phenotype. http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/1993/illpres/dna-rna.html

      Left out of the page is the important fact that the cell has more than 100
      trillion atoms that must be properly aligned. So really it is much more
      complicated than this simple link. The complexity of the process is better
      reflected in this link: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK26887/

      I said: “More life at conception is not human (42%) than
      will be born human (30%).”

      You said: “Are you saying that the organism that comes into
      existence in the process of fertilization is not a member of the human species,
      but later becomes a member? If so, at what point does an organism change
      species?”

      No, I am saying that the DNA in 42 percent of the zygotes is
      not human enough to live as human life and dies and is reabsorbed within the
      cell and body. The determination of whether or not it is human enough is a
      reflex action that is carried out by the DNA or cell itself. No sentient human
      makes that determination. In fact no human can make that determination. It would
      be impossible on a large scale.

      To what scientific authority are you appealing? Can you
      point me to the scientific literature that makes this argument?

      “incapable of living as a human”

      You keep repeating this phrase, but it sounds pretty novel.
      Can you please point me to a place in the scientific literature that explains
      and supports what you mean?

      I said: “Rather than focusing on saving a non human or
      potential human life, one should save real born human life.”

      You said: “We need ethical clarity when we discuss these
      matters. The question of elective abortion is not a question of whether or not
      we should *save* a life, but whether or not we should *take* a life.”

      No it is not. It is a question of which life society should take. (read the law
      of charity in my about link) One may either choose to save an innocent born
      baby or let that baby die and save a fetus.

      You said: “We’re not talking about miscarriage. We’re not
      talking about saving the life of someone in danger. We’re talking about whether
      or not it is morally permissible to *create* danger, to *cause* mortal danger —
      to directly and intentionally kill another innocent member of the human species
      through a surgical abortion, which decapitates, dismembers and disembowels a
      pre-born child, or a medical abortion which poisons them.”

      What you are talking about is killing one life to save another. Either a born
      person dies or a zygote/embryo/fetus dies. There is no way to avoid that outcome.
      And the important part of the equation is that the mathematical odds of saving
      the z/e/f are low. Therefore, most of the time the pro life movement kills the
      z/e/f and the innocent babies, children and adults. They all die. No life is saved
      and many lives are wasted.

      I said: “Only 30 percent =/_ will live to birth.”

      You said: “Again, we need clear thinking. What percentage of
      human offspring live until 3 months after birth? Or 3 months before birth? Or
      their 15th birthday? You raise a question of *lifespan*.”

      The question involves the odds of saving a life that is born vs the odds of
      saving a life that is unborn. And the question also involves saving a born
      human vs attempting to save a non human zygote. The fact is that saving born
      humans is much more likely than saving a zygote that you know will die 70
      percent of the time.

      You said: “ Are you suggesting that how long someone will live should determine
      the question of whether or not we should kill them?”

      I am saying that you are going to kill either a born person or an unborn
      person. So to me the born person should be saved. I don’t care if you choose to
      save the fetus and let born people die. But it is my duty to warn others that
      you are killing born life. You can warn people I am killing fetuses. Let’s see
      who people want saved, themselves, their babies or fetuses.

      You said: “ How is how long someone will live *morally* relevant?”

      It is important that born people be allowed to live as long as it is
      reasonable. That is why I have set up a worldwide triage organization. We
      should focus on saving the most life possible. We should not place the life of
      the fetus above the life of a baby.

      You said: “How does it answer the
      question of whether or not we should decapitate, dismember and disembowel them?”

      You have a choice, you can decapitate, dismember and disembowel innocent born
      babies or you can save them. My choice is to save the innocent babies.

      You said: “Or you think someone’s lifespan ought to
      determine their right to life?”

      There is no right to life, as proved by the fact that pro lifers must kill
      innocent babies to save fetuses. If there were a right to life, then innocent
      babies could not be killed to save fetuses.

      I said: “We self define rights we have. We don’t have “human
      rights” that are not created by humans. Human rights vary with human whim.”

      You said: “So, you aren’t in favour of human rights then?
      You don’t believe that human beings have any inherent rights?”

      They don’t. It is not debatable. All human rights are imposed by men.

      You said: “Let me ask another way: Do you think it would be
      wrong for somebody to kill you? If so, why?”

      Men have made laws to make that difficult, except at the whim of other men.

      You said: ”In trying to follow what your saying, I think it
      might be helpful to approach things from the other direction too. Are you in
      favour of partial-birth abortion?”

      I am not in favor of any abortion. A woman wants to have an
      abortion like a wolf wants to chew its own leg off to get out of a trap. If I
      spend one second attempting to force an end to abortion, then in that second
      1.8 innocent born humans will die that I could have attempted to save. No
      person I know “wants” to have a late term abortion.

      You said: “Do you still find it hard to
      determine the humanity of a pre-born child that late in pregnancy?”

      I face the facts. There is a 99 percent chance that there will be a birth of a
      human baby one second before delivery. And at conception there is a 30 percent
      chance. But there is a 100 percent chance that if I spend 1 second attempting
      to force the birth of any unborn, in that second 1.8 born babies die. So a choice
      to be pro life is a choice to murder born babies.

      You said: “Lastly, I keep asking to what scientific
      authority you are appealing, but you’ve only linked to your own website, and an
      opinion piece on another blog.”

      My Facebook page http://www.facebook.com/naturalabortionlaws
      has hundreds of authorities linked as well as a couple of different embryology
      courses you can take online. My web page http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com
      has links throughout the page as well as links to videos and other data. Look
      and ye shall find.

      If there is a specific question you have, and need a link, just ask. I have
      over 500 bookmarks. I can answer any question you have.

      You said: “ I’ve referenced the Gilbert text, but this article does a decent
      job of summarizing the science (check the footnotes for the references): http://www.l4l.org/library/mythfact.html#2”

      Of course on my sites I have hundreds of links and
      resources. But keep in mind that I am the original source of the “Scientific
      Abortion Laws” and those laws are based on some original research as well as
      the information that is linked. So I will be the source of some of the
      information.

      Permalink
      • On December 14, 2013 at 10:35 pm balleyne said:

        Russell, thanks for the response.

        The key objection I take is your incredibly lousy ethical reasoning.

        I’m just going to respond to six of the most egregious arguments you’ve attempted to make.

        You are essentially arguing:

        (1) Because many pre-born human beings don’t survive to birth and die naturally (e.g. miscarriage), there is absolutely no ethical problem with another human being directly and intentionally decapitating, dismembering and disemboweling them, or poisoning them to death.

        (2) Because we can only save so many human beings [an incredibly flawed statement in an of itself], there is absolutely no ethical problem with another human being directly and intentionally decapitating, dismembering and disemboweling them, or poisoning them to death.

        Re: (1), do survival percentages give us a licence to kill other human beings? How high would the infant mortality rate have to be before you condone infanticide by this same logic? Nevermind the fact that everyone dies eventually — how long does your likely chance of survival have to be before it becomes okay for someone else to kill you?

        Newborns are in a more precarious position and have a lower chance of survival to adulthood than toddlers — since according to the “law of charity” we are morally responsible if we don’t spent all our effort saving only the human beings with the greatest chance of survival, shouldn’t we ignore newborns in favour of toddlers? Heck, should we ignore people who are ill in favour of people who are healthy, if the key determining factor is odds of survival?

        (a) Key question: On what ethical grounds does the chance of survival justify killing somebody?

        You touched on this a bit: “There is a 99 percent chance that there will be a birth of a human baby one second before delivery. And at conception there is a 30 percent chance.”

        So, what about at 12 weeks of pregnancy? Or 20 weeks of pregnancy? Most abortions don’t happen at fertlization or a second before birth — show me why your argument is at all relevant to the question of abortion.

        Nevermind how insane this line of reasoning is:
        “The fact is that saving born humans is much more likely than saving a zygote that you know will die 70 percent of the time.”

        Just because there is X% chance of survival *at fertilization* does not mean that risk level stays that high throughout pregnancy. My youngest daughter is 34 weeks old, due for birth in about a month. The pregnancy has had no complications and at every check up with the OB/GYN and at every ultrasound she’s been healthy. Are you honestly claiming there a 30% chance that she will live another 4 weeks until birth? By that logic, the entire OB/GYN practice in support of pregnancy and pre-born child is a total waste of time.

        Even if we take your survival odds at face value, by the time most women even *know* they are pregnant — often at *least* a few weeks in — the numbers are *drastically* different. You spent most of your time making arguments that are utterly irrelevant to the abortion question the vast majority of the time.

        I can’t tell if you’re extremely misguided, just unable to think clearly about ethical issues relating to human action, simply being facetious, or constructing convoluted and irrelevant lines of argumentation to rationalize something. You seem intelligent, so I’m going with one of the latter two options.

        (b) Furthermore, what is the chance that a pre-born child will survive *abortion*? If you take a 12 week old child in utero, what are the chances of her survival with abortion versus without abortion? I’m pretty sure her chances of survival would be a bit lower if a trained medical professional attempted to tear her limb from limb from her mother’s womb, pulling the limbs off her torso and then crushing her skull to remove it from the uterus.

        Does a lower chance of survival justify something spending their time to take a deliberate action to almost eliminate that chance of survial? Does a low chance of survival justify someone else spending time to take action to drastically reduce it even further?

        Re: (2) How many born baby’s deaths are you responsible for when spending time to write a comment in reply to me on your blog? Or when you eat dinner every day, or sleep every night? The “law of charity” — besides not being anything remotely resembling a “law” — either makes no sense, or condemns you as personally responsible every moment that you are engaged in an activity other than saving somebody’s life.

        You said: ” If I spend one second attempting to force an end to abortion, then in that second 1.8 innocent born humans will die that I could have attempted to save.”

        Key question: By that logic, should an abortionist spend *any* number of seconds performing abortions to kill pre-born children? Isn’t an abortionist not only wasting time but working *against* saving lives if he/she SPENDS TIME to decapitate, dismember, and disembowel a pre-born child? According to your logic, don’t even MORE people die per second if your time is spent *killing* people?

        Re: the scientific questions

        (3) “I am saying that the DNA in 42 percent of the zygotes is not human enough to live as human life and dies and is reabsorbed within the cell and body.”

        Where in the scientific literature is the concept of “not human enough to live as human life” ever used? Where is birth defined as the determining factor?

        You’re making that up.

        Being human has nothing to do with birth. What changes, bioligically, the moment before birth versus the moment after birth? A shift in location does not biologically alter the essence of what an individual organism *is*. And lifespan does not determine *what* you are, only how long you will live.

        The question of living to birth is simply a question of lifespan. It has no relevance for us to determine to what species an organism belongs.

        Otherwise, show me where I’m wrong in the scientific literature — that we are completely in the dark as to what species a creature is the moment before birth, but after birth the shroud of doubt is lifted and now we know.

        (4) “The phenotype cannot be confirmed to be fully capable of birth, life and reproduction until some time after birth. That is why I suggest that the proper point is birth. In my mind, if it can be born as human, it is human.”

        So, your logic is, if we can’t *confirm* that someone is human, we can decapitate, dismember and disembowel them? Do you really believe that an OB/GYN treating a pregnant women or performing an abortion is unsure whether the subject of the abortion is a member of the human species? If not human, then of what species is the offspring?

        Plus, again, unclear ethical reasoning:

        (a) how does our ability to *confirm* what something is *change* what that thing is? That doesn’t change what it is, it only challenges our *perception* of what it is.

        (b) And, your argument about uncertainty (not being able to “confirm”) *still* says nothing of the ethical question of abortion. To decapitate, dismember and disembowel another creature, uncertainty is not justification.

        - If your daughter says to you while you’re washing the dishes and have your back to you, “Daddy, can I kill this?” What would you say? Would your answer be different if she were talking about a spider versus her infant brother? Would you say, “I am not yet certain about which you speak, so yes, please decapitate, dismember and disembowel the thing of which I am uncertain [because the law of charity says if I spend too much time thinking about this, I am failing to save others of whom I am certain are human beings.]” Or would you ask her, “What is it?” Would you seek *certainty* first, before authorizing a kill? Or would uncertainty justify killing?

        - If you were running a demolition crew and your job was to tear down an office building, and you asked one of the construction workers, “Is the building empty? Or are there any humans inside it?” and the worker told you, “I’m not certain yet.” Would you proceed to demolish the building with uncertainty as justification? You don’t know whether or not there is human life inside the building from a prospective analysis at that point. Or would you need some assurance that there isn’t a person inside the building before authorizing the demolition, lest you might kill some human beings in the process?

        If you honestly don’t know yet whether the offspring of a pregnant human being is also a human being until birth (which I’m baffled by — I don’t think it’s very confusing at all to OB/GYNs or pregnant women) because the prospective view leaves you unable to confirm that (or unable to recognize the [actual] Law of Biogenesis)… shouldn’t you find out before authorizing someone else to decapitate, dismember and disembowel the offspring and then discard the offspring as medical waste? Or is your personal uncertainty sufficient to justify killing?

        (5) Scientific references.

        The Facebook page doesn’t exist:
        https://www.facebook.com/naturalabortionlaws

        Re: specific link, how about for your most important claim (number #3 in my reply): “not human enough to live as human life.” Where does that concept appear in the scientific literature?

        “But keep in mind that I am the original source of the “Scientific Abortion Laws” and those laws are based on some original research as well as the information that is linked. So I will be the source of some of the information.”

        Has your original research been subject to scholarly peer review?

        (6) Re: human rights

        I asked, “You don’t believe that human beings have any inherent rights?” and you replied, “They don’t. It is not debatable. All human rights are imposed by men.”

        Okay, so answer me this:
        (a) Why shouldn’t somebody come and kill you now? Would that be wrong to you? On what basis? [I think that'd violate your right to life, but you don't seem to think that you have one.]

        You didn’t answer me last time I asked. You just said that men have made laws to make it difficult. That doesn’t answer the question. Would it be wrong for someone to come and decapitate you right now? If so, why? [Again, I think it would be very wrong, but I'm curious what *you* think.]

        (b) “It is important that born people be allowed to live as long as it is reasonable.”

        Why?

        Permalink
        • On December 15, 2013 at 5:54 pm Russell Crawford said:

          You said: “The key objection I take is your incredibly lousy ethical reasoning.”

          I will understand when you retract that statement in the future.

          You said: “I’m just going to respond to six of the most egregious arguments you’ve attempted to make.

          You are essentially arguing:”

          You said: “(1) Because many pre-born human beings don’t survive to birth and die naturally (e.g. miscarriage), there is absolutely no ethical problem with another human being directly and intentionally decapitating, dismembering and disemboweling them, or poisoning them to death.”

          I have never said that the reason abortion is ethical is because others are dying of natural abortion. The reason that abortion is ethical is because one must choose which life to save, either a fetus or a born baby. And if a pro lifer makes the choice to save a fetus, then a born baby, child or adult will die. Pro lifers place the life of the fetus above the lives of their very own children and the children of others.

          You said: “(2) Because we can only save so many human beings [an incredibly flawed statement in an of itself], there is absolutely no ethical problem with another human being directly and intentionally decapitating, dismembering and disemboweling them, or poisoning them to death.”

          I have never said that there is no problem with a person killing another human being. In fact I am complaining about pro lifers that kill other humans. The fact is that we all choose to let other people die. For example all humans are dying. For that reason you cannot save all life. Therefore, if you do save life it is because you chose one life over another. And that is how humans operate. If you save one person it is because you chose to save that individual. Other people that you could have chosen to save are dying, and will continue to die. Your choice to save person “A” is a choice not to save person “B” and that person dies. You can frame the death of either person in maudlin terms. For example my choice is to say that pro lifers place the life of a fetus above the life of a child being burned to death in a fire. And that expression is true. Pro lifers could have chosen to save innocent children that are being burned to death.
          The Nazis could have chosen to save the Jews and let the fetuses die. They were in fact pro life. But they choose to let the Jews die and save the fetuses. You choose to let born children burn to death in fires and save zygotes that feel no pain in death.

          You said: “Re: (1), do survival percentages give us a licence to kill other human beings? How high would the infant mortality rate have to be before you condone infanticide by this same logic? Nevermind the fact that everyone dies eventually — how long does your likely chance of survival have to be before it becomes okay for someone else to kill you?”

          You have answered your own question without knowing you have done so. Pro lifers believe that it is OK to kill born babies and all human life in an effort to save even one fetus. On the other hand I believe that the most life possible should be saved and have set up an organization that will lead to triage of all human life. There is no excuse for pro lifers to choose the life of a fetus above the lives of all other people.

          You said: “Newborns are in a more precarious position and have a lower chance of survival to adulthood than toddlers — since according to the “law of charity” we are morally responsible if we don’t spent all our effort saving only the human beings with the greatest chance of survival, shouldn’t we ignore newborns in favour of toddlers? Heck, should we ignore people who are ill in favour of people who are healthy, if the key determining factor is odds of survival?”

          No. That cannot be implied, read the law again.

          You said: “a) Key question: On what ethical grounds does the chance of survival justify killing somebody?”

          Any choice to save one person is a choice not to save another. Your choice is to kill innocent babies, children and adults by letting them incinerate slowly and painfully, my choice is to save them and let fetuses that feel no pain, die.

          You said: “You touched on this a bit: “There is a 99 percent chance that there will be a birth of a human baby one second before delivery. And at conception there is a 30 percent chance.”
          So, what about at 12 weeks of pregnancy? Or 20 weeks of pregnancy? Most abortions don’t happen at fertlization or a second before birth — show me why your argument is at all relevant to the question of abortion.”

          Once again the fact is that we all make choices of whom to save. I choose to save innocent born babies and you choose to let them die. While you are attempting to save a fetus I will attempt to save your children. Without people like me, your children could die.

          You said: “Nevermind how insane this line of reasoning is:
          “The fact is that saving born humans is much more likely than saving a zygote that you know will die 70 percent of the time.”
          Just because there is X% chance of survival *at fertilization* does not mean that risk level stays that high throughout pregnancy.”

          No one ever said it did. The risk is that 70 percent die at conception and 1 percent die at birth.

          You said: “My youngest daughter is 34 weeks old, due for birth in about a month. The pregnancy has had no complications and at every check up with the OB/GYN and at every ultrasound she’s been healthy. Are you honestly claiming there a 30% chance that she will live another 4 weeks until birth? By that logic, the entire OB/GYN practice in support of pregnancy and pre-born child is a total waste of time.”

          I am amazed that you will lie about what I have said. You know that I laid out the risk and the fact that it varies over time, because in an earlier question you discussed that risk. So why lie at this point in the conversation?

          “Even if we take your survival odds at face value, by the time most women even *know* they are pregnant — often at *least* a few weeks in — the numbers are *drastically* different. You spent most of your time making arguments that are utterly irrelevant to the abortion question the vast majority of the time.”

          You know my position on this issue and are attempting to create a straw man argument. That is not only dishonest, it will not win people over to your side.

          You said: “I can’t tell if you’re extremely misguided, just unable to think clearly about ethical issues relating to human action, simply being facetious, or constructing convoluted and irrelevant lines of argumentation to rationalize something. You seem intelligent, so I’m going with one of the latter two options.”

          That is simply an ad hominem fallacy that is of no value to the conversation. A personal attack on me does not help your argument.

          You said: “(b) Furthermore, what is the chance that a pre-born child will survive *abortion*? If you take a 12 week old child in utero, what are the chances of her survival with abortion versus without abortion? I’m pretty sure her chances of survival would be a bit lower if a trained medical professional attempted to tear her limb from limb from her mother’s womb, pulling the limbs off her torso and then crushing her skull to remove it from the uterus.”

          This statement by you highlights the crux of my understanding of pro lifers. You believe that everyone should be forced to share your belief that a zygote is a baby and that all babies should have human rights. The fact is that life is continuous and the zygote is no more important than the sperm and egg one billionth of a second before conception. Your beliefs are not rational and most people will never believe that a zygote is a baby or even that a fetus is a baby. Why, because you cannot prove it to be so. I can prove that life is continuous and that a fetus is not a baby.
          You are welcome to believe that all life from conception is human life worth protecting. But that belief in fact causes you to murder innocent babies. And most people will not join you once they understand the error in your thinking.

          You said: “Does a lower chance of survival justify something spending their time to take a deliberate action to almost eliminate that chance of survial? Does a low chance of survival justify someone else spending time to take action to drastically reduce it even further?”

          The fact is that the only thing that should guide where “public money” or donations should be used is to save the most life possible. If one chooses to do otherwise he is choosing one life above another without justification. You should not be allowed by law to force the birth of a fetus knowing full well that you are allowing an innocent baby to die.

          You said: “Re: (2) How many born baby’s deaths are you responsible for when spending time to write a comment in reply to me on your blog? Or when you eat dinner every day, or sleep every night? The “law of charity” — besides not being anything remotely resembling a “law” — either makes no sense, or condemns you as personally responsible every moment that you are engaged in an activity other than saving somebody’s life.”

          I am saving life when I stop pro lifers from murdering innocent babies. And there is a difference in the duties of all other people. There is no moral charge for any person to “save life”. We have no duty to save another, why, because we are all dying and if we focus on saving ourselves, we are focusing on saving life. Those of us that claim to “save life” do in fact have a duty to actually save life. For example, I claim to save life and my chosen method is to stop pro lifers from murdering innocent babies. You claim to save life and are likewise, for that reason, obligated to save life. You have chosen a path whereby you kill the lives I am attempting to save. It is my duty to stop you.

          I said: ” If I spend one second attempting to force an end to abortion, then in that second 1.8 innocent born humans will die that I could have attempted to save.”
          You said: “Key question: By that logic, should an abortionist spend *any* number of seconds performing abortions to kill pre-born children? Isn’t an abortionist not only wasting time but working *against* saving lives if he/she SPENDS TIME to decapitate, dismember, and disembowel a pre-born child? According to your logic, don’t even MORE people die per second if your time is spent *killing* people?”

          An abortionist does not believe that a zygote/embryo/fetus is a human life. You may believe that a z/e/f is a baby, but you cannot prove that to be true. The abortionist can prove the fetus is not a baby. So the problem is that your beliefs lead to the death of innocent life and his beliefs lead to an increase in life. It would appear that you are the one that is killing life.
          How you say does the abortionist save life? A women has several hundred thousand eggs and it is her duty to plan a life that uses those eggs most efficiently and produces life that she can raise properly. The abortionist is helping her use her eggs efficiently.

          Permalink
          • On December 21, 2013 at 12:32 pm balleyne said:

            The beginning and the end of your comment ties the deep problems with your ethical reasoning together quite nicely.

            You can give no reason why we ought to save any human lives, nevermind why born people be allowed to live as long as it is reasonable, except your own “personal belief.” You can give no reason why somebody should not kill you at all, except whether or not they might be able to get away with it.

            Thus, your very own Law of Charity has no ethical underpinning whatsoever. Why should anyone follow your personal belief if there personal beliefs are different?

            Why should anyone follow your personal belief that born humans are more valuable than pre-born humans? It’s just your personal belief.

            Why should anyone follow your personal belief that borns humans should live as long as is reasonable? You can’t even give me a reason why that should be an ethical imperative.

            Your entire system of ethical laws and theories is based on nothing more than your personal belief. In short, who cares? All someone needs to say to disagree with you is “my personal belief is different,” and you have no grounds upon which to argue with them anymore.

            In your world, your own personal whims and beliefs can divide human beings into two categories of who we should save and who we should let die. Quite simply, no thanks, I don’t personally belief in that kind of ethical injustice.

            I hold it to be self-evident that all human beings are equal, with certain inalieable rights, among these life being an essential one, that the reason it is a grave moral wrong to directly and intentionally kill another human being is that it violates this inherent dignity, that the vast majority of human beings recognize this as well through their own instincts and conscience. That you have no defence of your own life seems sad, but I would defend your life — you have that same inherent dignity and value, whether or not you choose to recognize it.

            But, at the end of the day, it’s pointless having an ethical argument with someone who has no ethical basis for his arguments except “personal belief.” Give me a *reason* why I should share your personal beliefs (“It is important that born people be allowed to live as long as it is reasonable”), otherwise you make no argument but simply express your opinion.

            Permalink
          • On December 23, 2013 at 7:39 am Russell Crawford said:

            You said: “The
            beginning and the end of your comment ties the deep problems with your ethical
            reasoning together quite nicely.”

            I was not addressing ethical reasoning. You will find that your ethical claims
            are not valid and cause the death of human life.

            “You can give no reason why we ought to save any human lives,”

            If you have to make up a reason to save human life, then what is the
            point? I save human life because I think it is the right thing to do
            based upon my scientific understanding of what is possible. Your ethical
            beliefs lead to the death of human life.

            “never mind why born people be allowed to live as long as it is
            reasonable, except your own “personal belief.” You can give no reason
            why somebody should not kill you at all, except whether or not they might be
            able to get away with it.”

            You obviously have a different opinion than
            me and that is just fine. My duty here is to clarify the effect of your actions
            based upon your opinion as opposed to the effect of my actions based upon
            my opinions.

            “Thus, your very own Law of Charity has no ethical underpinning
            whatsoever.”

            The Law of Charity is not debatable. It is a scientific fact
            that there are more people dying than can be saved. There is no ethical
            underpinning to that scientific fact.

            “Why should anyone follow your personal belief if there personal
            beliefs are different?”

            If they wish to kill human life, then they shouldn’t. My personal belief is
            that the most human life possible should be saved. If they believe that some
            should die that do not have to die, they are welcome to pursue that path. My
            path includes a duty to point out those that would kill others. For that reason
            I am opposed to the pro life movement.

            “Why should anyone follow your personal belief that born humans are more
            valuable than pre-born humans? It’s just your personal belief.”

            It is not my personal belief that is the foundation of my arguments. My
            foundation is in scientific fact. The fact is that all life, including life in
            meiosis, mitosis, sperm, egg, zygote, and all other stages from the initial DNA
            3.5 billion years ago is of equal value. If life is killed at any stage, then
            that life dies and will no longer be capable of producing additional life.

            “Why should anyone follow your personal belief that borns humans should
            live as long as is reasonable?”

            No one has to believe what I believe. All they should do is recognize the
            factual situation. That situation is that life exists in a multitude of forms.
            If we kill any form of life, then it can longer reproduce. If we
            intentionally kill a sperm, then that sperm cannot fertilize an oocyte and as a
            result a potential human life is lost. One may either save the sperm or
            let it die. My choice is to save the most life possible. And I am willing
            to let people decide if born human life should be saved or if the
            sperm, egg, zygote, embryo or fetus should be saved.

            “You can’t even give me a reason why that should be an ethical
            imperative.”

            I am dealing with the foundation that underlies ethical law. There is no
            scientific reason that life should be saved. Scientifically speaking we
            exist because of a random series of events and then we will die. The length of
            time we exist is all I am trying to influence. If I help one person live, then
            another person will die. My net effect is that all people, pro life, pro choice
            and otherwise, will choose whom they want to live or die based upon their
            personal beliefs. For example my Biblical beliefs are based upon my
            understanding of what I personally believe the Bible requires. What you tell me
            the Bible says is your belief not mine. My ethical base is quite
            different from yours and is Christian.

            “Your entire system of ethical laws and theories is based on nothing more
            than your personal belief.”

            I seriously doubt if you know my entire system of ethical laws and theories.
            All ethical theories are nothing more than personal belief. My personal belief
            is founded upon my perception of scientific law.

            “In short, who cares? All someone needs to say to disagree with you is
            “my personal belief is different,” and you have no grounds upon which
            to argue with them anymore.”

            No, you must disprove scientific law.

            A person can disagree with another person under any set of circumstances. For
            example I claim that all people die and you could disagree and say that they
            don’t. And that is what I want you to do. You need to place your beliefs before
            people so that they can see and understand your thoughts. And I will do the
            same.

            “In your world, your own personal whims and beliefs can divide human
            beings into two categories of who we should save and who we should let die.”

            You are attempting to
            build a straw man fallacy. Everyone divides human life. I have never suggested we divide human beings
            into two categories of who we should save and who we should let die. So lets
            clarify that. I say that all humans that attempt to save life choose
            whom to save and whom to let die. I do not suggest that as a goal, it
            is a fact. Pro lifers choose to “attempt” to save fetuses,
            I attempt to save born babies. As a result of our choices, others die.

            “Quite simply, no thanks, I don’t personally belief in that kind of
            ethical injustice.”

            You currently choose to save fetuses, as a result, you do not choose to save
            innocent babies and they die.

            “I hold it to be self-evident that all human beings are equal,”

            No, you place the life of a fetus above all other life. You let others die
            so that you can claim to save fetuses. The scientific fact is that you are
            wasting your time.

            “with certain inalieable rights, among these life being an essential
            one,”

            Your actions show that you do not care to much for life. You have living humans
            that you could save and you choose to let them die. So life is not
            essential to you.

            Scientific laws show that you have a choice, you may save born babies, children
            and adults, or you may let them die. Your choice is to let born life die. My
            choice is to save born life. Your ethical beliefs lead to death for innocent
            babies, children and adults.

            Permalink
          • On December 23, 2013 at 8:05 am Russell Crawford said:

            I am sorry for the divided answer, Disqus crashed.

            “I hold it to be self-evident that all human beings are equal, with certain inalieable rights,”

            No you hold the fetus above all other life.

            “among these life being an essential one,”

            No, you hold the life of the fetus to be essential. You make the intentional choice to let born babies die to save fetuses.

            “that the reason it is a grave moral wrong to directly and intentionally kill another human being is that it violates this inherent dignity,”

            You know now, for a fact, that you choose whom to save, the fetus or the baby. You intentionally choose to let the baby die in an effort to save a fetus you cannot prove is alive or human.

            “that the vast majority of human beings recognize this as well through their own instincts and conscience.”

            The vast majority have been mislead.

            “That you have no defence of your own life seems sad, ”

            I will die, as will you. There is no choice other than being saved from death by a person that believes in saving born life. I you spend time saving me then in that time frame, others will die, both the unborn and born. Only by saving the most life possible can you claim to be ethical.

            “but I would defend your life — you have that same inherent dignity and value, whether or not you choose to recognize it.”

            If you spend one second defending me, then in that second 1.8 other people will die. I appreciate the fact you want to be my champion, but you will do so by letting others die.

            “But, at the end of the day, it’s pointless having an ethical argument with someone who has no ethical basis for his arguments except “personal belief.”
            Certainly you can see the inherent ethical value of saving the most life possible?

            “Give me a *reason* why I should share your personal beliefs (“It is important that born people be allowed to live as long as it is reasonable”), otherwise you make no argument but simply express your opinion.”

            There is no ethical imperative that any life be saved. But if you claim to save life, then you should really save life. The fact is that a choice to save a fetus is a choice not to save a born life. The odds of saving a fetus are less than the odds of saving born life,—-in most cases. For that reason one should attempt to save the most life possible. That is an ethical belief founded in scientific fact.

            Permalink
          • On December 23, 2013 at 2:20 pm balleyne said:

            Two points in reply:

            1. Ethics vs. Science, and your ethical subjectivism

            I’m not sure that you understand the different between science and ethics. Science can *never* tell us what we ought to do, what we should do. Science can provide us with valuable and essential information that informs such a choice, but that is an ethical choice. Science cannot tell us what is right and wrong, only how things are — you need ethics to use scientific data to then make a decision of right and wrong.

            You have no reason why it is right to save lives.

            (a) If you have no logic to your ethics, no reason for your ethics, why should I take them seriously?

            (b) Let’s try again: You say it’s your personal belief that “it is important that born people be allow to live as long as it is reasonable.”

            Why do you personally believe that?

            2. On the bogus Theory of Choice stuff

            “Every choice to save one life simply allows another to die.”

            And, you wrote:
            “there is a 100 percent chance that if I spend 1 second attempting
            to force the birth of any unborn, in that second 1.8 born babies die. So a choice to be pro life is a choice to murder born babies.”

            This is a bogus, false dilemma that anyone who thinks about it for more than two seconds would find laughable. Is this really the crux of your argument?

            Let me phrase it this way: I’m hungry right now. Do I face a choice between saving a life and eating a sandwich? 1.8 people are dying every second — of how many murders will I be responsible if I spend 5 minutes eating a sandwich? Do I face a choice between eating a sandwich or murdering born babies?

            Be serious.

            Permalink
          • On December 23, 2013 at 8:35 pm Russell Crawford said:

            You said: “Two points in reply:”

            Two points won’t get you anywhere.

            “1. Ethics vs. Science, and your ethical subjectivism

            I’m not sure that you understand the different between science and ethics. Science can *never* tell us what we ought to do, what we should do. ”

            That is exactly what I said and believe. But science lays the foundation for what is ethical and what is not ethical. For example if science shows a person is not in fact “saving life” but killing life then any claim that an action is ethical because it saves life is untrue. A claim by the pro life movement that it saves life is disproved by the fact that they simply trade one life for another.

            “Science can provide us with valuable and essential information that informs such a choice, but that is an ethical choice. Science cannot tell us what is right and wrong, only how things are — you need ethics to use scientific data to then make a decision of right and wrong.”

            Scientific facts can limit what can be claimed to be ethical.

            “You have no reason why it is right to save lives.”

            No one has a reason that is not “made up” with regard to what is ethical or not. Your made up ideas violate scientific law and are therefore invalid. For example some make up a claim that being pro life is ethical. But science shows that pro lifers do not save life. So the made up claim is untrue.

            “(a) If you have no logic to your ethics, no reason for your ethics, why should I take them seriously?”

            My ethics are proved to be possible by scientific law and yours are proved to be impossible. It is impossible to save a fetus without intentionally letting a born baby, child or adult die. It is possible to save the most life possible.

            “(b) Let’s try again: You say it’s your personal belief that “it is important that born people be allow to live as long as it is reasonable.”

            Why do you personally believe that?”

            Because it leads to the saving of the most life possible.

            “2. On the bogus Theory of Choice stuff
            “Every choice to save one life simply allows another to die.”
            And, you wrote:
            “there is a 100 percent chance that if I spend 1 second attempting
            to force the birth of any unborn, in that second 1.8 born babies die. So a choice to be pro life is a choice to murder born babies.”
            This is a bogus, false dilemma that anyone who thinks about it for more than two seconds would find laughable. Is this really the crux of your argument?”

            It is not a false dilemma. In a false dilemma, the dilemma must be false. And the dilemma I present is true. You have no other choice. You many only choose to save a born baby, child or adult or you may save an unborn. You cannot save both without causing the death of the other (under the terms I describe.) For example if you attempt to save a fetus, then a baby will die. If you attempt to save a baby, a fetus will die. If you attempt to save both a fetus and a baby, a baby will needlessly die. It is impossible to save a fetus without killing a baby.

            “Let me phrase it this way: I’m hungry right now. Do I face a choice between saving a life and eating a sandwich?”

            No, you have no duty to save a life. You only have a duty if you claim to save the life of others. Pro lifers claim to save life, yet they kill one to save another.

            Further, if you are hungry you may eat because by eating you are in fact saving your own life.

            “1.8 people are dying every second — of how many murders will I be responsible if I spend 5 minutes eating a sandwich?”

            You will not be guilty of any murders unless you claim that you are saving life when in fact you are killing life. For example if you claim that you are saving “babies” but you are in fact letting one baby die to save another, then you are killing innocent life. If you do not claim to save life, then you have no duty to save life other than your own, even if you save your life by eating the last sandwich.

            “Do I face a choice between eating a sandwich or murdering born babies?”

            I have explained this to you in several different ways and have posted answers to similar statements numerous times. One has no duty to save life unless one claims to save life, is duty bound by religious belief or has a legal duty to save life. So a person that saves animals or the environment has no duty to save babies. However, a person that claims to save life must in fact save life.

            In the end, I am saving life, you are killing life. All pro lifers murder born babies to save fetuses. That is what your ethical beliefs lead you to do.

            “Be serious.”

            In all seriousness, please stop killing babies to save fetuses.

            Permalink
          • On December 23, 2013 at 9:01 pm balleyne said:

            Your rebuttals seem to central on this “theory of choice” nonsense, so I’ll focus there. [The other insanely flawed bit of logic is that we don't know what species a healthy pre-born child is, but one thing at a time...]

            (1) “You only have a duty if you claim to save the life of others.”

            You claim to want to save the life of others, as do I. Does that mean that every second we spend doing anything else, we’re murdering born babies?

            (2) Define murder.

            (3) “If you are hungry you may eat because by eating you are in fact saving your own life.”

            Okay. Let’s say I’m bored. And I decide to watch a comedy film that’s 90 minutes long. And I claim to want to save the lives of others, because I’m pro-life. Am I then guilty of murdering 9720 born babies?

            Permalink
          • On December 23, 2013 at 11:31 pm Russell Crawford said:

            You said: “Your rebuttals seem to central on this “theory of choice” nonsense, so I’ll focus there. [The other insanely flawed bit of logic is that we don't know what species a healthy pre-born child is, but one thing at a time...]”

            It is clear that you don’t understand the “theory of choice”. You haven’t learned from my previous clear and simple explanations. I will try again.

            You said: “(1) “You only have a duty if you claim to save the life of others.”
            You claim to want to save the life of others, as do I. Does that mean that every second we spend doing anything else, we’re murdering born babies?”

            No, I am not claiming to save life every second. I claim to save life by stopping pro lifers from murdering innocent babies. I do not claim to save life while surfing the internet. So I am not letting born babies die to save fetuses. On the other hand, you claim to be saving life while you attempt to save fetuses, when you do so, you are killing one life to attempt to save another.

            “(2) Define murder.”
            I use the pro life definition whereby intentionally killing potential life is murder.

            “(3) “If you are hungry you may eat because by eating you are in fact saving your own life.”
            Okay. Let’s say I’m bored. And I decide to watch a comedy film that’s 90 minutes long. And I claim to want to save the lives of others, because I’m pro-life. Am I then guilty of murdering 9720 born babies?”

            No, you are not actively claiming to be saving life. When you attempt to save a fetus you claim to save life. That is when you have an obligation to tell the truth. You are not saving life, you are letting one life die to save another.

            I have explained this before, but let me remind you that you have no duty to save life unless you claim to save life, have a legal obligation to save life or a religious or similar duty to save life. Therefore, neither you are anyone else is killing life by carrying out your daily tasks. And when you do your daily tasks, you are saving yourself.

            Permalink
          • On December 24, 2013 at 12:41 am balleyne said:

            “You claim to be saving life while you attempt to save fetuses, when you do so, you are killing one life to attempt to save another.”

            Aha, so we’re at the core of the insanity. What someone is claiming to do is what magically transforms inaction from non-murder to murder? How does a claim change the nature of an action?

            You seem to be arguing: If somebody claims to do X, but fails to do X, and the opposite of X is murder, then they are guilty of murder through their inaction. But if they similarly fail to do X without claiming to do X, through precisely the same inaction they are not guilty of murder.

            (Aside: If I claim to be killing somebody, but I’m not actually killing somebody, does that mean I’m *saving* somebody?)

            This is getting crazy. You’re *really* twisting your logic here. How does one’s mere claim/intention make an inaction murder?

            I’m trying to think of analogy. Let’s say there are 1.8 glasses smashing on the ground every second. You’re saying that, if I claim to be saving the glass, but I’m not actually saving the glass, then I’m *actually* smashing things onto the ground. Yet, if I’m not actually saving the glass, but not claiming to save the glass, then I’m *not* smashing things onto the ground. Even though in both cases, things are smashing to the ground through no action of mine.

            You have a no concept of cause and effect, my friend. I think I’m done trying to explain how crazy this is. Plus, the key question is, what is a pre-born child? (Other reply.) Not of this cause/effect absurdity is even relevant if the pre-born are human.

            ps that’s not the pro-life definition of murder (e.g. potential?). But the above addressing the primary insanity of claiming that a totally unrelated inaction is “murder.” You keep using that word, but I do not think you know what it means…

            Permalink
          • On December 24, 2013 at 8:32 am rccrawford said:

            You said: “You claim to be saving life while you attempt to save fetuses, when you do so, you are killing one life to attempt to save another.”
            Aha, so we’re at the core of the insanity. What someone is claiming to do is what magically transforms inaction from non-murder to murder? How does a claim change the nature of an action?”

            A claim does not change the nature of an action. That is a straw man argument you are trying to construct. I have never claimed that your actions are in the form or “inaction” or that your actions are somehow “transformed”. Your actions are intentional killing of born life once you become aware of the impact of your actions. Pro lifers that do not know they are killing one life to save another can not commit intentional murder via the pro life definition of murder. The leaders of the Pro Life movement are in fact murderers by their own definition, because all know of the facts I have disclosed. (Or have a duty to know the facts disclosed here.)

            “You seem to be arguing: If somebody claims to do X, but fails to do X, and the opposite of X is murder, then they are guilty of murder through their inaction.”

            No, that is another stab at building a straw man on your part. There is no such thing as murder by inaction. There is however murder by intentional inaction when there is an obligation to fulfill a duty. For example if a person has no duty to save a life, then they are not obligated to save a life. The obligation to save life is imposed by intentionally accepting the obligation. People can accept the obligation through religious adoption, legal obligation or by public affirmation. They can also limit which life they will save. For example a mother has an obligation to save her born children, but not the children of others or a fetus.
            If the pro life movement were claiming that they were saving fetuses, not saving life, then we would not be having this discussion. People would not be deceived by your intent. They would know you are simply killing one life to save another. But the sad fact is that you do not accept responsibility for your actions. It is my duty to make people aware that you are not saving life and are in fact intentionally killing one life to save another.

            “ But if they similarly fail to do X without claiming to do X, through precisely the same inaction they are not guilty of murder.”

            That is another straw man that fails to make a point. The laws make it clear that regardless of your intent you are allowing a born baby to die in an effort to save a fetus. Two important points are: “Did you know you were killing one to save the other and do you have an obligation to save life”. Pro life leaders such as yourself know that you are killing one to save the other and you have an obligation to save life because you claim to be pro life.

            “(Aside: If I claim to be killing somebody, but I’m not actually killing somebody, does that mean I’m *saving* somebody?)”

            That is another straw man fallacy. The law is clear, if you claim to be killing someone and are not actually killing someone, you are not saving life and you are not killing life. In every day terms if a person has a duty to kill you and they do not kill you then in fact they may be saving you. But lacking a duty to kill you, they are not saving you, they are simply not killing you.

            “This is getting crazy. You’re *really* twisting your logic here.”

            You have tried one fallacy after another, it is you that is twisting logic. What I am doing is showing you your fallacies.

            “ How does one’s mere claim/intention make an inaction murder?”

            That is another straw man fallacy. The foundation of what constitutes killing one to save another is pretty clear. If you have an obligation to save life, and you choose instead to let the life die, then you have intentionally killed life.

            “I’m trying to think of analogy. Let’s say there are 1.8 glasses smashing on the ground every second. You’re saying that, if I claim to be saving the glass, but I’m not actually saving the glass, then I’m *actually* smashing things onto the ground.”

            No, that is another fallacy. There is no obligation to save the glasses. If you claimed that you were saving glasses, yet you smashed glasses, then perhaps you would have a point. You would be guilty of lying.

            “ Yet, if I’m not actually saving the glass, but not claiming to save the glass, then I’m *not* smashing things onto the ground. Even though in both cases, things are smashing to the ground through no action of mine.”

            As long as you are not claiming to “save” glasses from smashing then you have not made an analogy. You have made a fallacy.

            “You have a no concept of cause and effect, my friend.”

            The fact that you can construct lies and fallacies proves that you are the one with no concept of cause and effect. If you have a duty to feed your children and you intentionally let them starve to death you have murdered your children by inaction. That is cause and effect. If you claim to be saving life, and in fact you are killing one life to force another unwanted life, that is cause and effect. You are murdering one to save another. That is cause and effect.

            “I think I’m done trying to explain how crazy this is.”

            You have failed in every respect. I have proved you have an obligation to save life, because you claim to save life. I have proved that you do not save zygotes, embryos or fetuses most of the time, you simply waste time. And I have proved you know that you could have saved life, but choose instead to let it die. Those are the things I have proved in our encounter here. You have proved nothing.

            “Plus, the key question is, what is a pre-born child? (Other reply.) ”

            Retrospectively a fetus is a preborn child. Prospectively most zygotes die and are not pre born children and 42 percent do not have enough human DNA to enable them to live as humans.

            “Not of this cause/effect absurdity is even relevant if the pre-born are human.”
            The problem you have is that you must choose which life to save. You choose to murder innocent born babies, children and adults. You do not save 70 percent of zygotes. So you are a failure.
            My goal in life is to prove that you murder innocent born babies, children and adults. You are clearly guilty because you know the “Law of Charity” and the “Theory of Choice” and are simply making excuses to make yourself feel good about your murders. Pro lifers are so deep into self aggrandizement that they have lost complete touch with the real world.

            “ps that’s not the pro-life definition of murder (e.g. potential?).”

            Then what is the pro life definition of murder. You claim that killing a zygote is murder. A zygote has a 30 percent chance of becoming a born baby. So what is your explanation?

            “ But the above addressing the primary insanity of claiming that a totally unrelated inaction is “murder.”

            The “Law of Charity” and “Theory of Choice” make it clear that a person must choose whom to save. There is a direct connection from the choice you make and the impact of that choice. If you choose to save a fetus, a born person dies. If you choose to save a baby, an unborn dies. The action you take is directly related to the pro life definition of murder.

            “You keep using that word, but I do not think you know what it means…”

            I know that abortion is not murder and that pro life actions are murder. You also know that to be true. Whether or not you admit it is your problem and my opportunity. I intend on making it clear to every human that pro lifers murder one life to save another. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omission_(criminal_law)

            Permalink
          • On December 24, 2013 at 12:08 am Russell Crawford said:

            You said: “[The other insanely flawed bit of logic is that we don't know what species a healthy pre-born child is, but one thing at a time...]”

            Retrospectively we know that all healthy pre-born children are of the human species.
            Prospectively we don’t know if a product of conception is human, human enough to live as a human, alive or capable of being born alive.

            Permalink
          • On December 24, 2013 at 12:44 am balleyne said:

            “Retrospectively we know that all healthy pre-born children are of the human species.”

            In our retrospective understanding, at what point does a healthy pre-born child become a individual member of the human species?

            Permalink
          • On December 24, 2013 at 7:23 am rccrawford said:

            In the retrospective view a healthy pre-born child is an individual at every stage, just in a different form. That includes the haploid form of life. For example from the retrospective view we know the exact gametes that will fuse, the exact cells that will experience meiosis and the two humans that will create the gametes and their genetic history. We can even have some understanding of the chain of DNA from which the baby –may have– derived its own DNA all the way back to the point at which evolution created the first human life.
            From a prospective view we cannot even tell if it has enough human DNA to live as a human.

            Permalink
          • On January 6, 2014 at 1:33 am balleyne said:

            Hi Russell, happy new year! Wondering if you’ve had a chance to respond to my last comments (e.g. question above)?

            Permalink
    • On December 11, 2013 at 12:28 am Russell Crawford said:

      I have read the paper entitled “When do Human Beings Begin” By Dianne Irving and have outlined my concerns. Her paper is nothing more than a retrospective view of the “when does life begin” argument that leaves out the importance of meiosis and the changed nature of the DNA of gametes. It varies little from most pro life treatments that either intentionally or accidentally leave out important information. My intention is to choose the worst offending text which will be in quotes and explain the flaws.

      “To begin with, scientifically something very radical occurs between the processes of
      gametogenesis and fertilization — the change from a simple part of one
      human being (i.e., a sperm) and a simple part of another human being
      (i.e., an oocyte — usually referred to as an “ovum” or
      “egg”), which simply possess “human life”, to a new,
      genetically unique, newly existing, individual, whole living human being
      (an embryonic single-cell human zygote).”

      The error here is that the egg and sperm are not a part of another human, they
      are half of a new human that is separated by a distance. The DNA of the egg and
      sperm have or will undergo meiosis and “crossing over” that changes their
      genetic material into material that is different from the parent. Therefore,
      they are everything that will be the zygote, they are only separated by a
      distance.

      “ That is, upon fertilization, parts of human beings have actually been
      transformed into something very different from what they were before; they have
      been changed into a single, whole human being.”

      The gametes are exactly the same material that will become the zygote. They are
      genetically coded to do what they do, they simply follow the instructions of the DNA.

      “ During the process of fertilization, the sperm and the oocyte cease to
      exist as such, and a new human being is produced.”

      The DNA of the sperm and oocyte “are” the same as the DNA of the zygote. And
      all of the processes that lead up to creation of the zygote are coded in the
      DNA that exists before the fertilization. A portion of the DNA that becomes the
      zygote can be traced back in time to the first DNA of life, before human life,
      and the rest is the result of evolution. There is very little or no new
      material and anything that is new usually leads to the death of the zygote. The rest is evolution at work.

      “To understand this, it should be remembered that each kind of living organism
      has a specific number and quality of chromosomes that are characteristic for
      each member of a species. (The number can vary only slightly if the
      organism is to survive.) For example, the characteristic number of
      chromosomes for a member of the human species is 46 (plus or minus, e.g., in
      human beings with Down’s or Turner’s syndromes). Every somatic (or, body)
      cell in a human being has this characteristic number of chromosomes.”

      The fact is that we are diploid beings but we are also mixoploid beings with the
      DNA of our hearts, once we are fully developed, having several times the usual
      number of chromosomes. Adult hearts are 71 percent tetraploid and 2 percent
      octaploid. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ploidy

      “ Even the early germ cells contain 46 chromosomes; it is only their most
      mature forms — the sex gametes, or sperms and oocytes — which will later
      contain only 23 chromosomes.1 Sperms and
      oocytes are derived from primitive germ cells in the developing fetus by means
      of the process known as “gametogenesis.” Because each germ cell
      normally has 46 chromosomes, the process of “fertilization” can not
      take place until the total number of chromosomes in each germ are cut in
      half. This is necessary so that after their fusion at fertilization the
      characteristic number of chromosomes in a single individual member of the human
      species (46) can be maintained — otherwise we would end up with a monster of some
      sort.”

      The fact is that we do end up with a “monster” most of the time. In fact of all
      sperm and oocytes that are alive prior to fertilization, most die in the
      process or shortly thereafter. If fertilization does anything at all, it kills
      most life. The egg and sperm were alive before fertilization and are usually dead
      afterward. The sperm frequently have flawed DNA and the oocyte also has some
      flawed DNA. At fertilization if there is a replication problem or an ordering
      problem with the more than 100 trillion atoms in the process, then the DNA will
      either repair itself or be dissolved or reabsorbed by the body. As much as 42
      percent of fertilizations end up with DNA that is so flawed that it is
      destroyed in the first trimester. http://humupd.oxfordjournals.org/content/8/4/333.full.pdf+html

      http://miscarriage.about.com/od/pregnancyafterloss/f/70percent.htm

      “To accurately see why a
      sperm or an oocyte are considered as only possessing human life, and not as
      living human beings themselves, one needs to look at the basic scientific facts
      involved in the processes of gametogenesis and of fertilization.
      It may help to keep in mind that the products of gametogenesis and
      fertilization are very different. The products of gametogenesis are
      mature sex gametes with only 23 instead of 46 chromosomes. The product of
      fertilization is a living human being with 46 chromosomes.”

      Actually the product of fertilization is usually death. 100 percent of living material
      enters the process and only 30 percent of those entering will become human
      babies. And of the 70 percent that die, 42 percent will be non human and 28
      percent will die of other causes. So what we have is more non human life than
      born babies as a result of fertilization. Though it is correct that all human
      life was at one time a human zygote (the retrospective view of life), not all products of conception will become human life. All life entering the process of fertilization was human life with 23 chromosomes and only separated by distance. So we went from 100 percent human life to 30 percent human life.

      “ Gametogenesis refers to the maturation of germ cells resulting in
      gametes. Fertilization refers to the initiation of a new human being.”

      Fertilization refers to a process that kills human life and prevents most human
      life from being created.

      “Meiosis refers to the halving of the number of chromosomes that are
      normally present in a germ cell — the precursors of a sperm or a definitive
      oocyte — in order for fertilization to take place. The resulting cells
      have only half of the number of chromosomes as the previous cells — in human
      beings, 23.”

      No where is the important process of meiosis discussed. Meiosis involves
      the stage of crossing over, where the first genetic reshuffling occurs that
      differentiates the sperm and egg from the parents. If there were a point that
      could be said to be the first change in the DNA then meiosis would be that point.
      The DNA of the parent is shuffled and the resulting DNA is different from the
      parent.

      “ Thus, for fertilization to be accomplished, a mature sperm and a mature human oocyte are needed. Before fertilization, 8 each has only 23 chromosomes. They each possess “human life,” since they are parts of a living human being;”

      The sperm and oocyte are not part of any living human, they possess different
      DNA before fertilization and are in fact human life of the 23 chromosome variety.
      The are not of the same DNA structure as the parent prior to fertilization and after
      meiosis.

      http://content.karger.com/ProdukteDB/Katalogteile/isbn3_8055/_78/_02/embryo_1.pdf

      “ but they are not each whole living human beings themselves.”

      They are in fact as whole as the zygote, only they are separated by a distance.

      “They each have only 23 chromosomes, not 46 chromosomes — the number of
      chromosomes necessary and characteristic for a single individual member of the
      human species. Furthermore, a sperm can produce only “sperm”
      proteins and enzymes; an oocyte can produce only “oocyte” proteins
      and enzymes; neither alone is or can produce a human being with 46 chromosomes.”

      And a zygote cannot produce a human being without outside help. Everything that
      is the zygote is found in the egg and sperm including all the instructions to
      enter the process that leads to fertilization and birth. If the zygote is a
      full human being in an early stage, the egg and sperm are a human being in an
      earlier stage.

      “The fusion of the sperm (with 23 chromosomes) and the oocyte (with 23 chromosomes) at fertilization results in a live human being,”

      The fusion of the sperm and oocyte yields a reduction of life of 70 percent.
      100 percent of living humans of the 23 chromosome variety enter the process and
      only 30 percent survive.

      “This new single-cell human being immediately produces specifically human
      proteins and enzymes11 (not carrot or frog enzymes and proteins),”

      All –confirmed- human life, including the egg and sperm, specifically produce
      human proteins and enzymes.

      “and genetically directs his/her own growth and development. (In fact, this genetic growth and development has been proven not to be directed by the mother.)12 “

      The genetic direction, exercised first by the egg and sperm prior to fertilizatiion, comes from the DNA of the sperm and egg and is transferred under the direction of the egg and
      sperm to the zygote. The zygote contains a reshuffled mixture of the DNA of the
      egg and sperm with minor changes.

      “ Finally, this new human being — the single-cell human zygote — is biologically an individual, a living organism — an individual member of the human species. “

      The zygote is the product of the egg and sperm, constructed by the information
      contained in the egg and sperm. If the zygote is a individual member of the
      human species, it is because the egg and sperm were earlier stages of the same
      species. The zygote is the egg and sperm and nothing more.

      “In sum, a human sperm and a human oocyte are products of gametogenesis —
      each has only 23 chromosomes. They each have only half of the
      required number of chromosomes for a human being.”

      The sperm and oocyte are unique individual human lives of the 23 chromosome
      variety, each with DNA different form the parent and each an earlier stage of a
      46 chromosome human zygote.

      “ They cannot singly develop further into human beings.”

      The sperm and oocyte contain unique genetic material different from the
      materials of the parents. Each singly develops by moving into position, joining
      together in penetration of the egg and initiation of the process of fertilization.
      Each moves to its correct position jointly and produces the zygote.

      “ They produce only “gamete” proteins and enzymes.”

      All information to produce the zygote and the correct proteins came from the
      DNA of the sperm and oocyte. No new information was introduced into the
      process.

      “ They do not direct their own growth and development.”

      The sperm and egg do direct their own stage of life as 23 chromosome human life.
      They have a series of growth processes to complete and they do so and those
      processes lead to the development of the zygote.

      “ And they are not individuals, i.e., members of the human species.”

      They are 23 chromosome individuals that are coded in their DNA to carry out the
      process of creating a 46 chromosome human. They are members of the human
      species.

      “ They are only parts — each one a part of a human being.”

      The sperm and egg are unique individuals with different DNA from their parents.

      “ On the other hand, a human being is the immediate product of
      fertilization.”

      The product of conception that is produced in fertilization will not likely be
      a born human life. The sperm and egg are in fact separate human lives of the 23
      chromosome variety and will produce a zygote. The zygote will likely not
      survive.

      “ As such he/she is a single-cell embryonic zygote, an organism with
      46 chromosomes, the number required of a member of the human species.”

      Though the zygote will be constructed of and by living human life with 23
      chromosomes, it is more likely the zygote will not be human than it is to become
      a born human baby.

      “ This human being immediately produces specifically human proteins and
      enzymes, directs his/her own further growth and development as human,
      and is a new, genetically unique, newly existing, live human individual.”

      The DNA of the oocyte and sperm created the zygote and was the stage of life
      prior to the zygote stage. Both stages direct the creation of a unique, newly existing,
      live human individual that has a 30 percent chance of becoming a human being.

      ——–
      The remainder of the paper is of no value to this discussion so I will not
      comment on it until a later date. As one can see, the paper is filled with
      logical and factual errors that render it useless in the discussion of the beginning
      of human life. I will deal with the rest of the paper later.

      Thanks for the link. If you have other links you would like to offer, I would
      love to see them and investigate their claims.

      Permalink

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>