Fraggle (also Tiassa: I just glanced at your remarks) - It would be interesting to see how you might classify some of the more striking language errors RussellCrawford is falling into. I found myself searching for categories like
catachresis and
periphrasis. Most folks would be just be responsive to appeals for clarity.
On my page
http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com I do keep it simple and direct,
I don't plan to go there. But I'll read whatever you post here.
and on my OP here it was simple and direct.
You have yet to make clear to your readers what you're talking about. You've adopted bizarre speech and placed unreasonable demands on them. You've coined obscure language like "Law of Charity". You've constructed facially false, nonsensical and absurd statements like "one must allow a born baby to die". There is nothing at all simple and direct in this. There are tacit rules to common rhetoric which you seem to pretend don't exist. You mentioned attending university. Do you honestly think your freshman English teacher would accept any of these devices in a term paper?
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.
Your statements by themselves demand explanation. Once you start noticing that people are unable to make sense of them, bells should be going off in your head. It should be evident to you that everyone here is reasonably intelligent and of above average education. That alone should spur you to trim your sails. But instead you've been accusing them of lacking powers of understanding. You seem insensitive to the fact that in debate the onus is on the proponent to deliver the proposition in clear plain speech. When an explanation becomes so complex as to confuse the rational reader, the proponent must expect questions, and should have already anticipated them when constructing the proposition in the first place. It counts against him to lay blame on the reader for failing to untangle statements which are convoluted to begin with. And even if there were some rational purpose for the use of convoluted speech (as in propounding a riddle) the proponent he would expect to be asked for clarification, and -- this is the biggie -- he would actually be responsive.
No, there is no intent to elaborate on Roe v Wade. What I am saying is in conflict with Roe.
Are you or are you not making a statement for or against the definition of life as set forth by that Court?
I claim that until the DNA of the genotype "expresses" the correct phenotype
Genotype and phenotype refer to traits -- as the term applies to taxonomy, evolutionary biology and related matters of science. This is a mistake in
category. You are on a different page, looking for an alternative to the term
viable fetus. The way to do that without dragging the reader behind your bumper is to
say it in your opening remarks. The rules of logic, whether we are speaking in terms of rhetoric or geometry, place the onus squarely on the proponent to begin with an
established fact upon which all sides will universally agree, and then to work his way to the fork in the road where controversy lingers. So for example, you need only open like this:
In the landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision Roe v Wade the State of Texas argued that life begins at conception. The Court ruled against Texas, finding that the living person does not emerge from the embryo until it has achieved what the Court called viability. This was further defined as "able to survive outside the womb albeit with the aid of life support". I will argue here that the Court erred by an over-reliance on facts taken from the science of developmental embryology, whereas scientific jurisdiction over the question of life properly belongs to the field of genetics. In particular, I will argue that there is an objective test for the emergence of the living person from the primitive embryo, which is measurable by referring to a minimum set of physical characters, which, once they appear, complete a checklist of traits, and that checklist is identical to the one that geneticists universally agree distinguishes the human phenotype from all other taxa.
Then from there take up your crusade.
there is no way to know if the product of conception is alive
The product of conception is an embryo. And yes, there are ways to know if an embryo is alive. Do I really need to list them?
There is a way to know the expectation of a live birth, E[x]. But so what? E[x] is germane to the medical recommendation to abort, but only on a case-by-case basis. It has no relevance to your thesis, unless you intend to deviate from the interpretation I gave above.
or if it has enough human DNA to live as a human.
The language here is atrocious. Drop the artifice and speak plainly. This should read "or if it will reach viability", or words to that effect. You are trying to make a statement about things that can go wrong during embryonic development, but "having enough human DNA" is not a proper characterization of any of them. It compounds the affront to the reader to say "to live as a human".
Let me see if I can rewrite your sentence for you in plainspeak:
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.
It is my belief that during the early stages of embryonic development it's impossible to determine whether the fetus will reach viability.
If this is not what you mean to say, then revise it. But don't regress!
And I can prove that scientifically.
Promises, promises.
The scientific proof indicates that a woman should have full autonomy over her body right up too birth.
Speech. Perhaps you mean:
I reject the Supreme Court's decision to limit the mother's autonomy once the fetus has become viable
Why, because according to the Law of Charity,
This is your own obscure language. It has no meaning to the reader. You might as well insert a secret code here.
a born baby must die to force the birth of a fetus.
This is meaningless to the reader. Until you can untangle this into clear speech, don't expect anyone to understand you. We're not mind readers. It might help to imagine that your life depended on getting your point across. Imagine you are a hostage tied to a chair in room where a bomb is ticking. You've managed to place a call by your voice activated phone. Your goal is to give the police directions to the hideout where the kidnappers stashed you. Tick, tick.
So the viability notion in Roe should be removed.
No, your statements should be removed. Viability was decided upon in order to remove the legal ambiguity surrounding the question of "quickening", the idea that there is an onset of life sometime after conception. The state law relied on the definition "quickening at conception" which conflicted with other evidence of quickening entertained by the Court. It was their determination that an objective test for the existence of a
person was that the fetus is able to survive ex utero, whether or not life support were needed. Therefore viability is the linchpin of the ongoing debate and cannot be removed from this discussion. You are of course free to argue against it until the cows come home. But we can't discard it.
The viability requirement causes a loss of life
There is nothing that remotely gives this sentence meaning.
that is counter to the interest of the nation
The "interests of the nation" are embodied in the Constitution, statutes and common law. The woman's right to abort a non-viable fetus belongs to common law, after the Supreme Court reviewed the applicable laws, in the light of judicial principals and doctrines (such as precedent). The "interests of the nation" are advanced on many fronts, but the nature of the legal question turned on the balance between state's rights and civil rights.
and its duty to protect born life.
No. The Constitution protects "
life, liberty and property" (Amends. 5 and 14) as a matter of civil rights, and it protects the states' rights (vaguely generalized in Amend. 10) which includes the states' claims that they may enact statutes which criminalize offenses against the person. The court determined that, owing to the arbitrary ways states can assign personhood to a fetus, and in rejecting the Texas claim that the "quickening of personhood" occurs as conception, the duty to protect the civil right of life to
persons -- which gave rise to a Constitutional claim within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in the first place (Marbury v Madison) -- required that an objective test be found for relating
fetus and
person. Viability was the answer, and it's a very good answer. And since it's the law of the land, the government has a duty to protect the viable fetus
equally to the protections afforded all other persons.
I do think that a pre born life is lost in late term abortion
Gawd. How about
In my opinion the destruction of a viable fetus is the same as taking a life.
but a born life is lost if the state enforces an anti-abortion scheme.
A state can't reverse Roe v Wade, nor can they prosecute an unconstitutional law without inviting the wrath of the Supreme Court. Nor does abortion pertain to live births. That leaves this both absurd and moot.
So the default position should be to defer to the autonomy of the woman.
A woman does not have the right to destroy a viable fetus. The default position is to protect all
persons equally, as provided by law. Equality is enshrined under the Equal Protection Clause of Amend. 14.
I trust women to make the right decision.
Neither "trust" nor "right decision" matter. It's a matter of law. That requires a careful definition of the "elements of the offense" of the crime of murder, to include any case involving the murder of a viable fetus.
Because you hold that view [against states' rights] , you should support the laws.
No, my position is that common law unfairly protects states' rights at the expense of far too many injuries of civil rights and liberties. The best example is the legalization of slavery, the Jim Crow laws, discrimination against women, and cruel and unusual punishments historically inflicted by states; injuries which all flourished under the banner of states' rights.
The "Scientific Abortion Laws"
This is an example of obscure speech that does nothing except to confuse readers.
lead naturally to a removal of the government from the control of the body and lives of a woman.
The viable fetus has a right to life. In rare medical cases that fetus may not remain viable into the late term. Its termination, in order to preserve the mother's life, may be medically necessary and would not violate Roe v Wade. On the other hand, the state doesn't pretend to ignore the legal status of a viable fetus, and it is authorized under Roe v Wade to prefer murder and/or child endangerment charges if the mother were to intentionally terminate and/or harm her viable fetus.
The laws support full autonomy and trust in the judgment of women.
No they don't. Many women are serving life sentences or have been executed for murdering their children, and many more have served time for injuring theirs.
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."
I am leery of Christians who are phobic about Orthodoxy (churches) since it tends to foment an alienated loner-type of pathological religious ideation which I find very dangerous. But the rest of what you said is very appealing. Any religion that shuns the public policy arena is most likely not a public threat. The rest may be.
EDIT: I may have misunderstood you. You may have meant "we really like Jesus and limit our ideals to matters of the church, not matters of public policy." If so, my remark above wouldn't apply to your religious sect.
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.
And we are all telling you we have a problem with the absurdity of this remark.
So there is no moral reason to force birth.
There are ethical and legal reasons to protect the right of life retained by the viable fetus.
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.
See my remarks above about this construction.
The rate of death in late term abortions is only 1 percent of fetuses that will not be born
Speech.
1% of all pregnancies that survive the first trimester will subsequently be terminated.
but there is additional risk after birth based on genetic flaws that are not obvious before birth.
Immaterial. It's either viable or not.
The risk of living is 99 percent at birth but does not increase after birth.
Speech.
The rate of live births is 99%. There is no such thing as "risk of living". That's one of the most convoluted things you've posted. The rest of that,
but does not increase after birth, is an affront to the reader. Why you insist on this bizarre language is puzzling.
The chance of saving a fetus is less than the chance of extending the life of a born person,
You haven't defined "extending a life". This is another bizarre formulation. if you mean
Mortality of premature births exceeds that of full term births then just say so, although it should be self-evident.
so the focus should be on saving born life.
The focus is on saving all human beings, to include all viable fetuses.
With that in mind, we should teach the Scientific Abortion Laws in schools
"Scientific Abortion Laws" conveys nothing meaningful.
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.
Schools should (and do) make young people aware of Roe v Wade, and the consequences of unprotected sex, with generous warnings about STDs. So we should probably leave the schools alone.
Then we should trust the intelligence of women to make the right choice.
No, we respect their rights of privacy, dignity and equal access to health care.
At the same time we respect the right to life of any viable fetus.
We are already back to the nightmares of the pro life minority in Texas.
That would comport with similar chronic problems there.
The lives of women are at risk.
Not unless they are avoiding their obstetrician's advice.
So I hope your will get on board and support the Scientific Abortion Laws.
I hope you will get on board with the English language.
I think you did not know the extent of the laws and the impact that they will have on society.
I think you have a convoluted sense of what laws are.
I hope you will read seriously the laws, make a strong attack against any flaws you see and help in that fashion.
Oh good, then you will appreciate all the criticism I've offered so far.
I need people with your intelligence to go full force against any flaws you see.
It only takes an average intelligence to wonder why you are putting us through this.
Only by surviving serious challenges to weak points in the laws will the laws have any impact on society.
Only by developing some facility in the basics of rhetoric will you ever succeed in persuading people of average intelligence to adopt your views on things.
Will you take a strong critical look at what I am offering and make intelligent comments about the flaws you see?
Will you look for a guidebook on English writing skills? You should enroll in a remedial English class at your local junior college, or online.
Your help is critical and your attacks on weak points are invited.
As Groucho said, "Those are my opinions. If you don't like them, I have more."
Any suggestions you make to improve the wording and the logical or empirical assumptions will be treated with respect.
I think I've covered the bases here.
I really hope you will participate. I think your skills will be of great value.
It's your own skills that are your best asset. You should think about the volume of feedback you got when you launched into this and wonder why folks were so responsive.
I am here to listen to you.
I haven't had a chance to do much but to react to the strange language you are using.
No, I came here to address any weaknesses in my arguments.
Then your quest has been fruitful.
No, it is a question of the correct structure of the laws, wording of the laws and application of scientific principle.
Strike that whole sentence. There is no science in anything you have propounded here. Nor have you succeeded in wedging some hypothetical law into this. In fact you've only talked around science and law. There has been no direct treatment of either, nor are they applicable to any of the points you've made.
I hope you will join with me and others in my quest to improve on my wording and application of scientific law.
There are others
.. the key to improving your wording is to start over. I'm trying to remember who it was who said "before I could finally write anything meaningful I first had to write all the meaningless things that ever occurred to me." Words to that effect. This is where you are. You're just stuck in a phase. Dump all this crap out of your system and rewire your speech pathways. Above all, try to speak naturally and stop forcing square pegs into round holes. Be as clear and logical as you can. Set the direction of the thread by laying down your proposition in plain speech.
---"You"--- are specifically invited to comment and your comments will be appreciated, even if you don't agree with anything I say.
I don't agree with much of it, and I'm not even sure I understand any of your reasons for saying it. The rest is up to you. Make me understand. But I guarantee you, I will not take a position on science any different than the folks you were railing against. They are among the cream of the crop at SciForums. You could learn a lot from them if you ever happened to take an interest in anything remotely technical.
