Law of Charity and Theory of Choice

[RussellCrawford]

First let me thank you for your effort and warn you that you will most likely not understand all the tenets of these laws for a long time. I will try and fill you in and straighten out your misconceptions as I encounter them. Please keep in mind that I have been dealing with this in online peer review for over 2 years. I have read some of what you say, you are clearly capable of understanding if that is what you want to do. If you have an agenda of any kind and are here to "shut this down", you will fail with the arguments you have below. I have already dealt with them before.

Like any laws or theories, these will fail if there is an error. So lets discuss what you have revealed.

You are either mistaken or this is some kind of informal treatment of what we conventionally mean by a law. Is this by any chance a school science project?

Neither you nor I can define what a law is, however these laws do meet the principles shown here:

(scientific law)

"(1) An established principle thought to be universal and invariable.

(2) A scientific generalization based on empirical observations of physical behavior."

http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Law

A law could emerge that does not meet those principles and still be a law, as shown by differing definition found elsewhere.

This is what I would call a controvertible proposition, not a law, unless you can offer something more to tune me in to your basis for saying it. I need only prove that the population is growing, for example.

The "Law of Charity" states: There are more people dying than can be saved.

There is nothing controvertible there.

The "Theory of Choice states: A person must choose to either save a zygote/embryo/fetus or born person.

There is nothing controvertible in the theory.

Neither the law nor theory are influenced by a change in population.

But it's probably in that realm of impossible things to prove one way or the other, certainly not without clarification..

No, either could be disproved by proving that life can live indefinitely with respect to time.

You would have to establish a few things: when is this true?.

The Law is always true and the theory is true within its limits.

At every instant of time?

Yes

What constitutes being saved?

An intervention by another that saves or extends life.

Is every person taking prescribed meds "being saved"?

The word every is misleading, if they are being saved, yes. If they are dying because of their meds, no.

How about the ones getting a rigorous daily workout and eating healthy? How about those benefiting from seat belts, anti-skid brakes, better tires and advances in roadway engineering, traffic engineering, etc.? And how about all the people who used to die from occupational injuries who now use protective gear, harnesses, safety and first aid stations, improved chemical safety, better labeling, better containers, quality control systems, and on and on. This is a pretty wide open throttle for covering a huge array of things that might constitute "being saved", once you specify exactly what you mean.

If the listed item above saves their life, in any way, then yes.

Maybe you meant to say "theorem" although I'm not sure exactly how that even applies to this, since it's really just another proposition.

No, it is not. You are taking it out of context. In context it is part of the theory.

you would have to be more specific here as well. For example, is this an extension of the specific meaning of "being saved"?

No.

Are you for example referring to a very narrow resource-limited application, such as in a hypothetical problem from operations research or economics?

No

In many of the examples I gave above, no person is being "denied" just because "one person is being saved". The seat belts in my car were installed by the factory, and no person is lacking seat belts simply because I have them. I can think of countless cases like this.

No one said that a person is being denied because "one person is being saved". This is really very easy if you will just apply yourself. Your "assumption" that one being saved causes another to die is incorrect. Both are dying, and you have a choice to save one or the other. You may save a born person or you can let what you call an unborn person die. Or you can save a fetus and let the baby die. Why, because if you attempt to save the baby, the fetus dies and if you save the baby, the fetus die. Why, because both are dying and you have a choice of which to save. You can't save both because there are more dying than can be saved.

As an example, lets say that there is a room packed full of babies and zygotes/embryos/fetuses in containers the size of the babies (so that all things are equal) and that the room is on fire. You see the room and immediately run in only to find that the conditions are dire. You see that you will only be able to make a single trip (just as you have a single life span) to save life. You must choose which you will save, the fetuses or the babies. Which will you save? They are all equal to you. To me the born babies are more valuable because the zygotes have a 30 percent chance of life, the embryos have an 85 percent chance of life and a fetus has a 99 percent chance of living even if I save them they will die short term at their natural rate. So the choice is simple to me. I will save the babies. What will you save?

Since I have arguments against the premises leading to this conclusion I would have to say that it's unsupportable, at least without you saying more specifically what you mean by "being saved" as I've said above.

As demonstrated above, you don't understand the concepts yet. Perhaps once you understand what is being said you will come up with a valid point.
The Theory and Law are fully supportable and the term "saved" includes all methods and concepts that save life.

You left out the main group - people that are neither being born nor dying. And you left out the time interval over which this is happening.

Every born person is dying. All life is dying, even zyogtes.

How does this relate to 7 B above?
What you need to know is how this applies to the question of population explosion. You need an exponential function that predicts the growth of population as a function of time. You need two pieces that combine to produce that graph: the exponential birth rate, and the exponential death rate. Then show how three fit together.

There is no connection to population explosion. The law/theory simply indicates that one may choose to save either a fetus or a born baby.

That I would tend to dispute as I've explained above. All decisions of life over death are not conscious ones. People die in their sleep. They get run over, shot, exposed to fatal chemicals or microbes, and on and on. It would be very hard to connect the total number of fatalities -- even in a small city -- to the availability of resources during an emergency or chronic illness or injury. Therefore it's very hard to tell what you mean here by "choice". Who is doing the choosing, and what percent of deaths (and, more importantly, people "being saved") are affected?

By "choice" I mean that there are at least two options and one option is selected over the other.
For example one may choose to save a born baby or a fetus. They can choose to save both, but if they do a born person will needlessly die. Why, because there are more people to save than can be saved. If a person chooses to save a fetus, then they have not chosen to save a baby and the baby dies. I understand that this is a difficult concept for some people to understand.

Are they mutually exclusive or independent events? Is one coin flipped to choose the fate of two people, or does Nature flip the coin for each person -- independent of every other person -- at about the rate of -- say -- one flip per heartbeat (approx 1X/sec?)

One occurs as a result of the other. Both the "lot" of fetuses and the "lot" of babies are dying and will die unless saved. The pro life movement chooses to save fetuses because they presumably value the fetus more than the baby.

You just got through offering a death rate of 1.8 per second. At that rate, how long will it take for 7 B people to die?

That is an irrelevant calculation and has nothing to do with the issue. The population of humans and fetuses will increase and decrease and it has no effect on the choice. Saying "what will happen to the Law if there are no humans" is like asking "what will happen to gravity if there is no mass in the universe."

The next thing would be to determine the birth rate, which is going to be slightly larger. Without even trying to estimate it (we can do that several ways rather quickly) , I'll just throw a number out there: let's say there are 1.81 births per second. Using that number, we'd have to conclude that 0.01 people are "saved" per second. Or 1 person is saved every 100 seconds. You see why it's hard to agree with you?

The birth rate has nothing to do with the issue. The issue is related only to the choice of whom to save.

No, a "born life" gets saved every time the parents feed it, every time they keep it warm, protect it from harm, and so on. And none of that affects (or is affected by) the rate of fetal death, which, besides abortion, happens routinely in the course of pregnancy regardless of whether the folks across the street are on their toes about their own child’s safety or not.

I am not clear as to your intent here.

If you ever get to take a class in probability theory, you'll learn what mutually exclusive and independent events are. A lot of the syllogisms you're propounding are being incorrectly cast as propositions that follow mutually exclusive premises when the nature that controls them is giving them independent statistics.

I believe I had a little probability in a statistics class at UT. But it doesn't matter I have explained these are laws and not propositions that have mutually exclusive premises. You do not understand the principles involved yet. You need to ask more specific questions rather than make unsupported accusations.

Those are independent events, so nobody dies just because a fetus lives, and, as I mentioned, the available resources to save lives are not single threaded.

No one has ever said that someone dies because a fetus lives. A person may just die. Or a person may die because pro lifers make the intentional choice to let them die. Their option is to let fetuses die. One or the other will die because there are more of both dying and both cannot be saved.

They are built-in to the world around us in a rich network which is quite resilient and capable of multithreading all kinds of supports that preserve life, not even necessarily bringing a human into the loop. Health and safety systems, people taking care of each other, medical resources, etc, are not single threaded like you're constructing them here.

If a person chooses not to save a dying person, then the person dies. That is really a very simple concept. Your statement above really does not address that issue within the context of the Law and Theory.

That statement is not clear.

It is very clear when taken in context. Both the fetus and the baby are dying. If you do not save one or the other, both die. If you save the fetus and not the baby, the baby dies. If you save the baby and not the fetus, the fetus dies.

Not at all. The reverse is true. It’s very rare to have to choose one over the other.

No, if you will think back to the "babies in a fire" explanation I posted earlier this will be easier to understand. Any choice to save a zygote/embryo/fetus from the fire, by gathering up all you can save, will mean that you did not save the babies. The babies died. And if you choose only one zygote and the remainder were babies you choose to save, then that zygote could have been replaced by a born baby and that baby dies. This is all about choice. The one you choose lives, the one you do not choose, dies.

And choice in the matter is irrelevant unless you're talking about murder. At some point in each of our lives, no choices are in play at all. Normal death often entails the gradual crash of systems that simply can’t be stopped, or the cessation of some normal process quite suddenly (as a stroke or heart attack) which have no connection to any choices being made.

Choice is all that matters. If you choose one, the other dies.

As far as abortion is concerned, the average woman will choose to abort based on the rate of pregnancy, and based on whether that rate is above or below the average birth rate. (1.8/sec). I have no idea how widely the rate of pregnancy varies.

A choice to abort is the woman's right based upon her value system. An attempt to force her to give birth will result in the death of 1.8 born babies, children or adults each second you spend attempting to force birth.

You would not only need to estimate the rate of productive fertilizations, but also those that would be successful if not for contraception. Then you need to account for all forms of contraception. That's a formidable task.

The rate of fertilizations has no effect on the choice.

I don't think anyone could accurately process these sweeping general statements you're making. It would require vast amounts of highly tailored data sets that go way beyond present capacity of the average scale of technical research. In any case, you need to narrow down a lot of what you're saying.

I haven't made any sweeping generalizations. You just do not understand what is being proposed. If you work at learning what is revealed, you will be able to understand. It is not a problem of you not being smart enough. It is a simply a difficult proposition for some people to understand.

No, because death is opportunistic. Look up some common causes of death and tell me which of them is caused by helping someone else live.

The fact that death is opportunistic has no impact.

The only cases I can think of are executions and murders -- those are done willfully. Show me one example of a person's death being caused by (What?) -- something -- being done to save a life.

None of your listed items have any effect on the choice.

If you like, you can assume that my life has been saved X times by seat belts in Y cars over a period of Z years. Show me one scenario in which even one of the Y seat belts became a cause for someone else's death...

No one has said that your life being saved caused the death of another person. The law is really very clear. Other people die unless they are saved, not because you were saved. However someone may have had a choice to save you or another person and may have chosen to save you.

OK so you mean an expectant mother bringing a baby to full term can't deliver in the same maternity ward where a preemie is delivered, hooked up to a ventilator and treated against some common types of illness and injury preemies are susceptible to? I'd have to argue that those are independent events. It happens every day. It’s happening right now.

No, that has nothing to do with the choice. However a person could choose to save her baby (depending on its risk of dying short or long term) or let it die and instead save a fetus.

No, if there is any choice at all involved in saving them, the choice will be made to save them both.

They both cannot be saved. Read again the "babies in a fire" post above.

That's what hospitals are doing every 1.81 seconds or whatever the number is. (Plus we have to count the babies born out of hospitals. A few are born in vehicles on the way to hospital, but I guess we can neglect that number. They can have no relation to the rate of “saved fetuses” whatsoever, since they're not utilizing resources.)

The number of babies born or dying has no impact on the choice.

Sorry again but there is no infinite set of humans. As you mentioned before, the population is around 7 billion, and though it's growing, it's never infinite. And the rest of your logic needs rework for the reasons I've already mentioned.

No one ever said there is an infinite set of humans. You need to fully read what is stated and not scan.

Give me one example of someone choosing to kill a baby after it's born. I have no idea what you're referring to.

You just need to learn more about the laws and theories. There is no connection to killing babies after they are born.

How did we do that? Who did it? When/where did it happen? As I’m sure you know, once the baby’s head is in the birth canal, there’s usually no stopping it, and no one would dream of trying to stop it other than in some rare medical crisis. This is an automatic process, not something regulated by conscious decision at all. The decision was whether to have unprotected sex 9 months before, and then there was a second decision to bring the baby to term. But the rest is almost entirely automatic. And it’s entirely independent of a second woman’s decision to have an abortion. So this logic is missing the linking premise that leads to the conclusion.

Pro lifers do it every time a pro lifer chooses to save a fetus rather than save a baby. Pro lifers kill by "omission". That is how it is done. You might look up "murder by omission." No person has a duty to save life unless they establish a duty to save life. For example you have no obligations to save life unless you claim to save life. Pro lifers claim to save life and are therefore obligated to save life even though they don't, they kill one life to save another. People that do not claim to save babies are not obligated to save babies. For example some choose to save no other people and that is moral because they are in effect saving themselves. Others choose to buy a new TV instead of saving life. And that is moral because they have no duty to save life. Some choose to save dogs and that is moral because they have no duty to save babies.

That's absolutely the strangest statement I've yet encountered on this site . . . and there have been some pretty weird things said since I joined.

That is because you don't understand what is being said.

Huh? You’ve been saying this for two years? Dang, I could have helped you work through this in 5 minutes.

Your 5 minutes of help is not of value unless you understand what is being said. And you don't.

You have some strange ideas about peer review. But I guess I get your point. You're of the opinion that after engaging folks on this for a long time, it has become more correct. However you're missing a vital step -- fixing the logic to produce the result, which is not the same as arguing the various points in a forum. That, for sure, is a matter of choice.

In the period of time before the two year peer review I took into consideration the points you make above. They were taken into consideration.

Your comments are based upon the false assumption that you understand what is being said.

Fortunately for all of us who advocate for abortion rights, the pro-lifers don't choose whether we (or our children) live or die. The only ones I can think of are the few who bomb clinics. And that has nothing to do with the general logic you're putting forward. Murder is conscious, deliberated, but the choice of victim (esp a random attack) is often random/opportunistic. Moreso with accidental deaths.

That has nothing to do with the Laws or Theories.

That corroborates by earlier remark concerning the natural rate of failure to implant after conception. That number is believed to be around 70%. There again you see how life and death are opportunistic. No one is controlling this. No decision is involved.

A decision of which life to save leads one to make a choice to let another die. Read the "babies in a fire" again.

I'll go with that, understanding that a few other things can go wrong besides genetic flaws, but I think that's a fair statement. I wasn't aware that pro-lifers were ever talking about all conceptions. I had assumed that many of them are aware of the natural rate of failure to implant, and that there are plenty of natural miscarriages/abortions that have less to do with the population rate than they do with the average number of fertilizations needed to produce one baby. And obviously the rate of protected sex has nothing to do with this; and the rate of unprotected sex is sometimes not exactly a matter of choice, but of failing to stop and take precautions because it detracts from the spontaneity of the moment, or someone forgot their pill, that kind of thing. That's some incalculable combination of planned and unplanned (and/or neglectful) parenthood.

The rate of protected sex has nothing to do with the laws.
Precautions have no impact.
Forgetting the pill has no impact.
Nothing here impacts the fact that a pro lifer has a choice to save either a baby or fetus.

I think your assumptions need a lot of work across the board. You have an impossible hill to climb trying to reduce all life and death cases to matters of choice. I can't imagine how you even came up with this.

You just don't understand yet. Once you understand you will feel differently.

Still, you are making a valiant effort to apply logic, if only in a formulaic way. But just remember: the logic also has to be valid. I think I'd have to judge this a no-go for the time being, but after a good overhaul it could at least be plausible. I have no idea what a fixed version of this would say. I have no idea what you actually believe and why you're posting this kind of logic. If you want we can try to make an enumerated list of premises leading to conclusions in order to help you find your mistakes of logic. That shouldn't be too difficult. That way I can point out the defects a little more clearly in case my posting style isn't helping you.

You have not made any valid assumptions about the law yet. You need to address the points that the law actually impact and not a false impression of what is said.

Also, just curious: what in the world even drove you to arrive at any of these conclusions? You remind me a little of another poster here who is a fundamentalist who would never try to argue against the pro-life folks, even by this unusual string of mistaken logic you're using. But he has a similar way of stringing things together that are not logically related, and then believing the result is correct.

Once you understand the laws, then ask again. I think though that the reason will become obvious once you apply yourself and learn what is being said.

 

[RussellCrawford]

Actually, it's quite simple - Crawford is a crank. (shrug)

Those who cannot contribute to the discussion, contribute to the ad hominem remarks.

If you have anything valid to say you really ought to say it.

 

[RussellCrawford]

Certainly, most people who set up websites dedicated to airing their own notions in guise of science are cranks..

I assume that you are upset because your remarks yesterday were invalid. There is no reason to attack me just because you don't understand what is being said. Work on learning about the subject and then your comments may have some value.

So that puts the onus on any who are not to convince others they are an exception..

This is not about me or you. That is where your ideas fail. If you have a valid remark then you should make it.

A common misconception of all these types is that "educated" "scientists" are under a sort of moral obligation to take all ideas seriously, regardless of their origin, in order to show open-mindedness..

I am not seeking anything from you. You are here for your own purposes.

But if that were true, we'd all be stuck listening to the rantings of every nutter on the street corner and would never get anything done at all..

I have not asked you to listen to anything.

We all apply a filter in everyday life, and in science, to discriminate between people who are worth paying attention to and people who are not..

I evidently am worth paying attention to. You choose to read and "not understand a single word I wrote."

Lucidity of thought and of expression are the often the first things that indicate there may be something of value being said. Absence of these qualities makes us move quickly on.

Evidently you are unable to understand what is said and therefore falsely assume that there was no lucidity. That is your flaw, not mine.

 

[origin]

The delusion is strong with this one.

The "Theory of Choice states: A person must choose to either save a zygote/embryo/fetus or born person.

There is nothing controvertible in the theory.

Nothing controvertible? Are you serious? Your theory (which of course is not a theory) is absurd on every level. It makes no rational sense. I find it a little disconcerting that you could think that it does make sense.

 

[RussellCrawford]

The delusion is strong with this one.


Nothing controvertible? Are you serious? Your theory (which of course is not a theory) is absurd on every level. It makes no rational sense. I find it a little disconcerting that you could think that it does make sense.

The fact is that if you thought there were something controvertible in the theory you would have posted it to prove your point. You didn't instead you posted an ad hominem attack that has no value at all.

If you have something to say, say it.

 

[Aqueous Id]

As an example, lets say that there is a room packed full of babies and zygotes/embryos/fetuses in containers the size of the babies (so that all things are equal) and that the room is on fire. You see the room and immediately run in only to find that the conditions are dire. You see that you will only be able to make a single trip (just as you have a single life span) to save life. You must choose which you will save, the fetuses or the babies. Which will you save? They are all equal to you.

That last statement is unclear, but it's immaterial.

To me the born babies are more valuable because the zygotes have a 30 percent chance of life, the embryos have an 85 percent chance of life and a fetus has a 99 percent chance of living even if I save them they will die short term at their natural rate. So the choice is simple to me. I will save the babies. What will you save?

If this is the whole purpose of the thread you could have simply said so in the opening post. I don't understand the litany of argumentative statements you made to get me to this point. Nor do I think this scenario is necessary. A fetus in a jar isn't alive. It's just preposterous.

If I were you I would strip away all the circumlocution and just keep keep it simple and direct. It's pretty obvious that you simply want to elaborate on the definition of life as set forth in Roe v Wade. So go ahead. Rail away. Most of the folks here will tell you they support it.

Do I support that decision? Yes. Is is a crime to kill a fetus? As I'm sure you know, yes it is, if the child is viable. Do I support the interests of the state in that regard? No. I have little faith in the power of the people of any state being represented in the agents that represent them in such cases, esp. since these tend to be judicial officers infected by the Right Wing, bent on usurping, occupying and owning the privately held values of average people, esp. as they concern totally unrelated matters, like whether Christian Bible has a legitimate place in matters of public policy. And no, I adamantly say it is an insult to the intelligence of the vast numbers of people who share no such religious ideology to keep waving this in our faces, whether it comes up in abortion, the teaching of evolution, stem cell research, climate science, deregulation, gay rights, immigration issues, health care, the economy, foreign policy or just about anything else.

Back to the late term baby. While I said I do not support the position of the State, I certainly support that child's right to life once it has developed to a state of viability. This is the law of the land, and as far as I'm concerned the Tea Baggers and fundies can kick and scream until they are blue in the face -- we are never going back to the nightmares of the Bush era. Nor are we going back to the pathos of back alley mutilations and slaughter.

So what's really going on? Why bait folks who agree with you into arguing such a bizarre and contrived set of statements? Does it really matter if I'm critical of your awkward and imprecise logical constructions? I could help you correct your logical and rhetorical faux pas but to what end? You're not here to listen to me. You came here to lay down your claims, anticipating some bickering over rather frivolous issues superfluous to the definition of life. It's a question of viability, right? Why not just be at peace with that simple level of discussion?

I would have found it interesting to follow you on your excursion into forensics if it were not laced with all those landmines.

 

[origin]

The fact is that if you thought there were something controvertible in the theory you would have posted it to prove your point. You didn't instead you posted an ad hominem attack that has no value at all.

If you have something to say, say it.

OK I will say it.

You said this, "The "Theory of Choice states: A person must choose to either save a zygote/embryo/fetus or born person."

That means I MUST choose to save one OR the other, I cannot save them both. That is a false choice. Lets say I save a fetus, you state that since I picked a fetus, a born person will die. Why is that true? How does one act influence another life?

 

[RussellCrawford]

OK I will say it.

First thank you so much for asking intelligent and probing questions.
Such questions advance the knowledge of science and benefit mankind by shining a light of caution on the claims of people like me. You are the valuable link that could in fact disprove some aspect of what I am saying. I appreciate your questions and wish there were more scientist like you.

You said this, "The "Theory of Choice states: A person must choose to either save a zygote/embryo/fetus or born person."

I have also said that the "Theory of Choice" is dependent of the "Law of Charity". So if either is false, the theory fails. I hope you will use your best skills to attempt to disprove what I am saying. That is how advancements in science occur.

That means I MUST choose to save one OR the other, I cannot save them both. That is a false choice. Lets say I save a fetus, you state that since I picked a fetus, a born person will die.

That is a precise statement of the effect of the "Theory of Choice" and it involves a reasonable conclusion absent the impact of the "Law of Charity."

The "Law of Charity" states that there are more people dying than can be saved. So if you have an idea that would disprove that statement, your idea would disprove the law. In such a case both the "Law of Charity" (LC) and the "Theory of Choice" (TC) would be invalid.
The LC is based upon the fact that there are 7 billion people on earth and those people live under certain precepts. For example all people on earth will die and are in fact dying. All people on earth therefore are candidates to be saved. By saved I mean that their life can be extended by improvements in their health, food, or other circumstances that are too numerous to mention. The people currently on earth are dying at about the rate of 1.8 per second.

The basic idea of the LC is that 7 billion people are dying and that all could have their life extended for some period of time but that some are going to die regardless of what we do. So some people have very little risk and therefore need no instant help and others have so much risk that they cannot be saved regardless of what is done to save them. Therefore the LC indicates that one must have a method of choosing which life to save, that method is world wide triage. In triage the most life is saved when resources are limited.

We have established at this point that there are more people dying than can be saved and that to save the most life one must use triage. And we know that all life cannot be saved for an indefinite period of time even if there were unlimited resources, because everyone dies.

Because there are more people dying than can be saved a choice not to save a person is a choice to let that person die.

There is no obligation for any person to save another. However if a person adopts an obligation via religion or is legally required to save life or if they simply want to save a limited number of lives then they should actually save life and not allow one person to die in an effort to save another. A person is not immoral because they do not save human life because all people are in fact full time pursuers of saving their own lives. People are also not immoral because they choose to buy a new TV or to raise pets simply because all those things enhance their ability to save their own lives.

We are now at the point where it becomes obvious that triage should be used to save life, and that a person may choose to save life or not save life and both are equally moral choices.

The result is that because more people are dying than can be saved, and if a person chooses to save life, they will in fact, while using triage, choose to save either a born person or a fetus. Why is the choice limited, because there are only born and unborn people available to choose from should people choose to save human life.

Using triage, one must consider all the facts before they can save the most life possible. Because a zygote has only a 30 percent chance of life and an embryo has only a 85 percent chance of life and a fetus has 99 percent chance of life, all three have less chance of life than a born baby that is 100 percent alive. Therefore, in triage, while there are some times when a fetus would be the choice to save, most of the time a choice to save the fetus will actually lead to the choice of not saving a born person that has a higher chance of life.

So in the final examination of facts, one must choose which life to save because all life is dying. If a person chooses to save a born person, then they must choose which born person they will save. If they save a born person, then there is always a fetus that they could have chosen to save as well and the fetus will die. The same is true if the fetus is saved, a born baby will die. So a choice to save a born person lets other born people die and also lets a fetus die. A choice to save a fetus results in the choice not to save a born person. Either way a person or fetus dies.

I hope this information will help you understand the "Law of Charity and the Theory of Choice."

Why is that true?

It is true because there are more people dying than can be saved.

How does one act influence another life?

The act to choose to save a fetus is an act to not choose to save a baby and the baby, child or adult will die.

 

[RussellCrawford]

If I were you I would strip away all the circumlocution and just keep keep it simple and direct.

On my page http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com I do keep it simple and direct, and on my OP here it was simple and direct. There is no intent for circumlocution. Any circumlocution was the product of an attempt to make a complete answer to people that demanded more information.

It's pretty obvious that you simply want to elaborate on the definition of life as set forth in Roe v Wade. So go ahead. Rail away. Most of the folks here will tell you they support it.

No, there is no intent to elaborate on Roe v Wade. What I am saying is in conflict with Roe. I claim that until the DNA of the genotype "expresses" the correct phenotype there is no way to know if the product of conception is alive, will be born alive or if it has enough human DNA to live as a human. And I can prove that scientifically.
The scientific proof indicates that a woman should have full autonomy over her body right up too birth. Why, because according to the Law of Charity, a born baby must die to force the birth of a fetus. So the viability notion in Roe should be removed. The viability requirement causes a loss of life that is counter to the interest of the nation and its duty to protect born life.

Do I support that decision? Yes. Is is a crime to kill a fetus? As I'm sure you know, yes it is, if the child is viable. Do I support the interests of the state in that regard? No.

I do think that a pre born life is lost in late term abortion but a born life is lost if the state enforces an anti abortion scheme. So the default position should be to defer to the autonomy of the woman. I trust women to make the right decision.

I have little faith in the power of the people of any state being represented in the agents that represent them in such cases, esp. since these tend to be judicial officers infected by the Right Wing, bent on usurping, occupying and owning the privately held values of average people, esp. as they concern totally unrelated matters, like whether Christian Bible has a legitimate place in matters of public policy.

Because you hold that view, you should support the laws. The "Scientific Abortion Laws" lead naturally to a removal of the government from the control of the body and lives of a woman. The laws support full autonomy and trust in the judgment of women.

And no, I adamantly say it is an insult to the intelligence of the vast numbers of people who share no such religious ideology to keep waving this in our faces, whether it comes up in abortion, the teaching of evolution, stem cell research, climate science, deregulation, gay rights, immigration issues, health care, the economy, foreign policy or just about anything else.

I am a Christian and I agree with your views fully. There are a large number of Christians that do not want the church to involve itself in the political spectrum, medical decisions or the secular educational system. We really like Jesus and have concerns about "church."

Back to the late term baby. While I said I do not support the position of the State, I certainly support that child's right to life once it has developed to a state of viability.

The problem I have is that in order to force the birth of a late term fetus, one must allow a born baby to die. So there is no moral reason to force birth. In addition until the DNA expresses the correct phenotype for the processes that occur at birth one cannot tell if the fetus will be alive or have enough human DNA to live as a human. The rate of death in late term abortions is only 1 percent of fetuses that will not be born, but there is additional risk after birth based on genetic flaws that are not obvious before birth. The risk of living is 99 percent at birth but does not increase after birth. The chance of saving a fetus is less than the chance of extending the life of a born person, so the focus should be on saving born life.
With that in mind, we should teach the Scientific Abortion Laws in schools and mixed in with the laws should be a course that makes it clear that a late term fetus should not be aborted for trivial reasons. Then we should trust the intelligence of women to make the right choice.

This is the law of the land, and as far as I'm concerned the Tea Baggers and fundies can kick and scream until they are blue in the face -- we are never going back to the nightmares of the Bush era. Nor are we going back to the pathos of back alley mutilations and slaughter.

We are already back to the nightmares of the pro life minority in Texas. The lives of women are at risk. So I hope your will get on board and support the Scientific Abortion Laws.

So what's really going on? Why bait folks who agree with you into arguing such a bizarre and contrived set of statements?

I think you did not know the extent of the laws and the impact that they will have on society. I hope you will read seriously the laws, make a strong attack against any flaws you see and help in that fashion. I need people with your intelligence to go full force against any flaws you see. Only by surviving serious challenges to weak points in the laws will the laws have any impact on society. Will you take a strong critical look at what I am offering and make intelligent comments about the flaws you see?

Does it really matter if I'm critical of your awkward and imprecise logical constructions?

Your help is critical and your attacks on weak points are invited. Any suggestions you make to improve the wording and the logical or empirical assumptions will be treated with respect. I really hope you will participate. I think your skills will be of great value.

I could help you correct your logical and rhetorical faux pas but to what end? You're not here to listen to me.

I am here to listen to you.

You came here to lay down your claims, anticipating some bickering over rather frivolous issues superfluous to the definition of life.

No, I came here to address any weaknesses in my arguments.

It's a question of viability, right?

No, it is a question of the correct structure of the laws, wording of the laws and application of scientific principle.

I would have found it interesting to follow you on your excursion into forensics if it were not laced with all those landmines.

I hope you will join with me and others in my quest to improve on my wording and application of scientific law. ---"You"--- are specifically invited to comment and your comments will be appreciated, even if you don't agree with anything I say.

 

[origin]

The "Law of Charity" states that there are more people dying than can be saved. So if you have an idea that would disprove that statement, your idea would disprove the law. In such a case both the "Law of Charity" (LC) and the "Theory of Choice" (TC) would be invalid.

What do you mean by the statement "there are more people dying than can be saved"?

 

[Randwolf]

What do you mean by the statement "there are more people dying than can be saved"?

Good luck. The way I understand it is he's trying to say that resources are limited and you can either put your "efforts" into saving a child that is already born or forcing a woman to carry to term. Where it get's murky is at the beginning it starts with a "choice". Have fun...

 

[RussellCrawford]

What do you mean by the statement "there are more people dying than can be saved"?

It means that there are 7 billion people on earth and they are all dying and will all die.

It is scientifically impossible to save all humans, because we all die. We don't die because of a lack of resources, we die because that is what happens to all human life. Because we all die we cannot be saved, indefinitely.

 

[Aqueous Id]

It means that there are 7 billion people on earth and they are all dying and will all die.

It is scientifically impossible to save all humans, because we all die. We don't die because of a lack of resources, we die because that is what happens to all human life. Because we all die we cannot be saved, indefinitely.

For all of that you simply could have said "Humans are not immortal". So what? How does it remotely relate to the central theme of abortion, which is, that life is defined for the fetus which has reached viability? You seem to know that this is the nuance which breaks the back of your bizarre use of logic, so maybe you think it's better to avoid the question rather than to admit defeat.

 

[RussellCrawford]

Thank you so much for your well reasoned comments. It is because of people like you that I have been able to clarify the issue for others.

For all of that you simply could have said "Humans are not immortal". So what?

Everyone understands that people are not immortal. But that is not the point. The point is that people are not immortal "because they cannot be saved." So your suggestion is appreciated but off point.

How does it remotely relate to the central theme of abortion, which is, that life is defined for the fetus which has reached viability?

Viability has no impact and the reason why will be explained later.

Because life is not immortal, neither unborn nor born life can be saved. All that can occur is that "life" can be extended for some period of time.

You need to understand that it is better to save the life of a baby/child/adult that is not about to abort naturally than it is to attempt to save a z/e/f that will die via natural abortion.

Another point inherent in the LC and TC is that by focusing on saving life, not necessarily the life of the fetus, but all life, several lives can be extended for a period of time which is better than saving a fetus for the short time period of time too birth. Using triage it is possible to save several lives with the resources used to force the birth of a single fetus.

You seem to know that this is the nuance which breaks the back of your bizarre use of logic, so maybe you think it's better to avoid the question rather than to admit defeat.

I think you have missed the point of the "Law of Charity" and "Theory of Choice." They are not based upon "life at viability."

Let me explain the main point of the laws. There are simply more people born than we can save, because of the high population of the earth and the fact that everyone dies. Therefore if one wants to save life, they must choose which life they will save. There is no instant where there are only fetuses to save so there is always a choice between saving one of 7 billion born people or a fetus. The ability to save life has nothing to do with viability, because the born people are in fact viable and the fetus is --- Never viable--- until it is proved to be viable. So viability is not an issue except for the fraudulent claim that viability can be known before the fetus is born.

I do appreciate your interest in this issue. Your help is vital. Please feel free to continue to comment as you see fit.

 

[origin]

Your logic is nonexistent. You do not have to save a fetus - just continue the pregnancy and if it spontaneously aborts that is sad, but it has no affect on a living child one way or the other.

You appear to have some really, really, really bizarre notions. I find it astounding that you have convinced youself that what you are saying makes the slightest bit of sense. The more you write the dumber your idea sounds - and it didn't start out too hot!

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

Let me explain the main point of the laws. There are simply more people born than we can save, because of the high population of the earth and the fact that everyone dies. Therefore if one wants to save life, they must choose which life they will save. There is no instant where there are only fetuses to save so there is always a choice between saving one of 7 billion born people or a fetus.

Russell, I see that you're still at it. I have politely asked you three times to provide supporting evidence for your assertion that saving a fetus will almost surely result in the death of an already-born human. This is an extraordinary assertion which invokes the Rule of Laplace and requires extraordinary evidence before we are obliged to treat it with respect. Nonetheless I'll be considerably mollified if you can present any evidence at all.

This assertion flies in the face of both reason and statistics. Especially since the "universe of discourse" is the United States, whose laws are being discussed, in which the birth rate of native-born citizens has dropped below replacement level and the only thing that's propping up our Social Security Ponzi scheme is immigration. It's astounding to suggest that saving a fetus would do anything to this country except provide one more worker whose taxes will keep the government from going bankrupt for about one more millisecond.

I am going to report you to the Moderator of this subforum and let him decide how to deal with you. If you don't want to have that discussion with him, I strongly suggest that you clean up your act and provide the requested evidence before he gets here--or, more likely, admit that your argument is nothing more than an opinion and you actually have no evidence to support it.

Fraggle Rocker
Moderator
Linguistics
Arts & Culture

 

[Tiassa]

Zero-Sum Error

The Law of Charity: There are more people dying than can be saved.

The "Law of Charity" is based upon the fact that all people die.

Could you provide some literary background on this Law of Charity. To the one, it sounds a bit as if you're taking something self-evident, e.g., that all people die, and transforming it into a philosophical Law.

That there are more people dying than can be saved is self-evident, as well, but is not necessarily a fixed presupposition that will stand for all time.

Every choice to save one life simply allows another to die. Pro lifers simply choose to save fetuses and let children die. There is no “net” gain in life saved due to the fact that these laws limit when life can actually be saved. The greatest error of pro lifers is that by attempting to save a fetus, they are causing the death of more people than one would expect. For example if a person uses their charity to save a born child then the odds are, the child will live. But if they attempt to save a fetus the odds of saving the fetus at conception is only 30 percent and at birth only 99.5 percent.

There is a problem in the translation between abstract principle—a thought exercise limited by a zero-sum presupposition—and living application. Work around the zero-sum.

Consider the Christian call to charity. If any one Christian independently follows through on that, he or she becomes one in need; nobody can save everyone. But if every Christian does their part, the task becomes very nearly conceivable. Extend that to the whole of humanity, and the task likely becomes manageable. I say "likely", because we have no idea what things look like from that vantage; I could easily be wrong, and seemingly extraneous human suffering might well be a mystical requirement of the Universe, but lex parsimonae, at least, would suggest otherwise.

Zero-sum cannot be fixed as an eternally true presupposition. And, furthermore, in the question of abortion politics, it really isn't applicable. My personal opinion is that you should have run with the underlying joke, that the "saved" "child" in utero isn't going to live forever. And it's true that many of these "saved" organisms that emerge from the womb alive will suffer greatly during their time on Earth, but I hold with Wilde: The proper aim is to try and reconstruct society on such a basis that poverty will be impossible.

That will take care of a lot. And then we will see your Law of Charity and Theory of Choice in effect when humans must defend themselves against nature. Earthquake and tsunami, storms, wildfires, and even the someday-expected comet or asteroid.

We are the human species. We are rather quite capable, all things considered. We tend, however, to invest those faculties in distractions, amusements, and aggravations of the problem.
____________________

Notes:

Wilde, Oscar. The Soul of Man Under Socialism. 1891. Marxists.org. January 10, 2014. https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/wilde-oscar/soul-man/

 

[RussellCrawford]

Your logic is nonexistent.

You have not even figured out what I am saying, as proved by your point below. Therefore, you cannot know if there is logic.

You do not have to save a fetus - just continue the pregnancy and if it spontaneously aborts that is sad, but it has no affect on a living child one way or the other.

I do not claim that a spontaneously aborted fetus has any affect on a living child one way or the other. I can't even believe you would think such a thing. Until you know what the issues are I suggest you not offer an opinion.

You appear to have some really, really, really bizarre notions.

You don't know what my notions are. Please read the about page before you comment again. http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com

I find it astounding that you have convinced youself that what you are saying makes the slightest bit of sense. The more you write the dumber your idea sounds - and it didn't start out too hot!

What you are saying makes no sense, what I have said makes perfect sense. You need to read the Laws before commenting again.
Right now you have no clue as to what I am talking about.

 

[RussellCrawford]

Russell, I see that you're still at it.

It is good to see that --you took my advice-- and changed the wording of your question. It is still an invalid question, but at least it makes enough sense that I can understand what you are saying. Your other questions made no sense whatsoever.

I have politely asked you three times to provide supporting evidence for your assertion that saving a fetus will almost surely result in the death of an already-born human.

I have never made an assertion that "saving a fetus will almost surely result in the death of an already-born human."
Those are your words and they are a misrepresentation of what I say.
And your previous statement was an even greater misrepresentation .
I have do duty to answer any of your misrepresentations.

You said: "--your assertion-- that saving a fetus will almost surely result in the death of an already-born human."
Which is a lie. I have never made that remark. My assertion is that a person may choose to save a baby or let the baby die and save a fetus instead. My reasoning is posted several times on the page and makes perfect sense. Do you need me to explain the difference in the two statements?

This is an extraordinary assertion which invokes the Rule of Laplace and requires extraordinary evidence before we are obliged to treat it with respect. Nonetheless I'll be considerably mollified if you can present any evidence at all.

It is nothing more than an intentional misrepresentation, for what reason, I cannot venture to guess what answer would be appropriate.

This assertion flies in the face of both reason and statistics.

I have never made any assertion that flies in the face of both reason and statistics. You are being untruthful.

Especially since the "universe of discourse" is the United States, whose laws are being discussed, in which the birth rate of native-born citizens has dropped below replacement level and the only thing that's propping up our Social Security Ponzi scheme is immigration.

You are trying to change the subject here, please stay on point.

It's astounding to suggest that saving a fetus would do anything to this country except provide one more worker whose taxes will keep the government from going bankrupt for about one more millisecond.

Your ideas don't save life and increase the number of workers, they lower the number of lives and cause a decrease in the number of workers.

I am going to report you to the Moderator of this subforum and let him decide how to deal with you.

If you truly believe that you have asked a valid question, then by all means contact the Moderator.

If you don't want to have that discussion with him, I strongly suggest that you clean up your act and provide the requested evidence before he gets here--or, more likely, admit that your argument is nothing more than an opinion and you actually have no evidence to support it.

You asked a nonsensical question the first two times you posted. I answered the part of those questions that made sense, just as I have answered this current question. The invalid portions were not answered because they make no sense whatsoever.

If you would like to pose a real question or make a statement about what I have said, please feel free to do so. I personally invite you to make a comment or ask a question about any issue that is related to this post. But if you falsely claim that I say something or if you falsely paraphrase what I say, don't expect an answer.

 

[RussellCrawford]

Could you provide some literary background on this Law of Charity.

I suggest you read the information on my site http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com and http://www.facebook.com/naturalabortionlaw. You could also read my book "The Living Book on Abortion" but it was written some time ago.

To the one, it sounds a bit as if you're taking something self-evident, e.g., that all people die, and transforming it into a philosophical Law.

The law states "There are more people dying than can be saved" and is self-evident with regard to proof, but not with regard to application. As you can see, the concepts of the law are clearly not self-evident. The Law is based upon the fact that all people die. ----It is not a philosophical law.---- It is a scientific law.

That there are more people dying than can be saved is self-evident, as well, but is not necessarily a fixed presupposition that will stand for all time.

The Law is based on empirical data that indicates that all human life has always died and projects that all life will always die. To say that at some point some life will live eternally would be like saying that at some time in the future the acceleration of gravity would change. It is possible, but not likely.

There is a problem in the translation between abstract principle—a thought exercise limited by a zero-sum presupposition—and living application. Work around the zero-sum.

There is no zero sum involved. One is not killed because the other is saved. Both are dying and one must choose which to save.

Consider the Christian call to charity. If any one Christian independently follows through on that, he or she becomes one in need; nobody can save everyone.

There is no relationship to "need" or lack of need. The "Law of Charity" (LC) and "Theory of Choice" (TC) are only based on the choice that a person makes. Resources or lack of resources do not influence the law in any way.

But if every Christian does their part, the task becomes very nearly conceivable.

There is no influence capable by Christians attempting to use resources to impact the outcome of the law. Resources have no impact on the laws.

Extend that to the whole of humanity, and the task likely becomes manageable.

The whole of humanity cannot influence the outcome. This is based entirely on choice. If one forces the birth of a fetus instead of saving a child, the choice is to let the child die and to save the fetus. If resources have an impact, it is after the choice is made. The whole of society cannot impact the law simply because all 7 billion born people are dying as are all fetuses.

I say "likely", because we have no idea what things look like from that vantage; I could easily be wrong, and seemingly extraneous human suffering might well be a mystical requirement of the Universe, but lex parsimonae, at least, would suggest otherwise.

Because this is a scientific law, the results of the law are universal and repeatable. Because there are more people dying than can be saved, any choice to save a baby/child/adult will result in a choice not to save a fetus and/or other babies,children and adults. Likewise a choice to save a fetus will end in the death of born life.

Zero-sum cannot be fixed as an eternally true presupposition.

There is no zero-sum fallacy involved. The fetus and the born life are already dying, the concept is that one may choose which to save. And the length of time any unborn/born life can be saved depends on where its likelihood of living falls in the process of triage.

And, furthermore, in the question of abortion politics, it really isn't applicable.

It does not depend on politics. If politics do not recognize the laws then there will be needless deaths.

My personal opinion is that you should have run with the underlying joke, that the "saved" "child" in utero isn't going to live forever.

I haven't chosen to "run with" the laws, they are in fact scientific laws and I am simply describing what any observer can see if they look.

That will take care of a lot. And then we will see your Law of Charity and Theory of Choice in effect when humans must defend themselves against nature. Earthquake and tsunami, storms, wildfires, and even the someday-expected comet or asteroid.

The Law are not impacted by natural phenomena.

We are the human species. We are rather quite capable, all things considered. We tend, however, to invest those faculties in distractions, amusements, and aggravations of the problem.

We are the human species, and nothing we can do will impact the Laws. They exist and control the issue of abortion. If a person ignores the laws they continue to operate. It would be to the advantage of all people that care about human life to understand the laws.