Law of Charity and Theory of Choice

[Aqueous Id]

I agree with many of your criticisms of my use of the English Language.

I will take that as your admission that your speech is false, obscure, and incorrect.

I was disappointed that you did not know the correct usage of the words genotype and phenotype.

You should be disappointed that your misuse of these terms required me to object to them.

That pretty much limits what you can understand about what has been revealed.

Indeed unreasonably false, obscure and incorrect claims require us to decode your speech as best we can in order to try understanding them, and this does limit us. However, that reflects an increase, not a decrease, in the mental powers of your readers. And as long as you cling to the notion that obscurity is equivalent to revelation, that will pretty much limit your understanding about much of the world around you.

I was saddened when you expressed that you did not fully read my link to the "Scientific Abortion Laws" before commenting.

Since you have attached the spurious idea science of abortion to what is actually an abortion of science there was no point in visiting your site.

And I was saddened because you did not read the explanations that define what the laws say and how they are related to society.

Since you have attached the spurious idea Laws of Science to what are actually the Laws of RussellCrawford there was no point in visiting your site.

Lacking those pieces of information, you could not make a reasonable response.

Neither any information propounding an abortion of science nor the Laws of RussellCrawford are reasonable, therefore by avoiding your site I have reduced my risk of being infected by unreason.

Those are probably the reasons you struggled so hard with what you read.

My struggles to decode your cryptic speech were set in motion when you decided to violate the standard rules of rhetoric.

I was disappointed in that you spent so much time on Roe vs. Wade.

Said the person who introduced abortion to the Biology forum.

I could care less about Roe because it has nothing to do with the Law of Charity.

The Laws of RussellCrawford are rendered invalid by definition. Your lack of concern about Roe v Wade is made evident by your disrespect for the work done by the Court in its probe into the questions you have raised here. Indeed, while the Court involved itself with the Science of Abortion, the Laws of RussellCrawford have entirely concerned themselves with the Abortion of Science, hence your clash with the superior wisdom of the Court is understandable.

The viability claim of Roe becomes moot

Viability is not a claim but an element of the offense of criminal abortion, and was made relevant once you laid the factual predicate that the Court's wisdom is inferior to yours.

because in order to force the birth of a fetus one must allow a born baby to die.

Independent events are not mutually exclusive, therefore the claim you are killing one to save the other is false.

Because you do not have the right foundation in what I am revealing,

"Right foundation" and "abortion of science" are incongruent, therefore the obscurity you are revealing is useless to me.

and you did not read my page or my explanations,

I have read all or most of what you posted here, which is more than enough to detect the difference between Science of Abortion and Abortion of Science.

your advice is of little use.

Advice to be clear and accurate is always useful, which is why you also said your remarks will be of great assistance to me.

I am not likely to learn how to communicate with the people on this site,

Indeed your lack of learning and communication skills are your second- and third-most fatal weaknesses.

but I have successfully communicated with people of a greater, equal and lesser intelligence on other sites.

I'm convinced you believe you were successful with them. In any case your failures to yourself linger in what you've posted here.

So I think I will pass on your suggestion that I take a remedial English Class. I completed all my College Level English requirements way back in the early 1970's. But thanks for the advice.

So it's settled then. You will deliberately persist with the use of obscure speech.

There is no doubt that I make language errors.

Deliberately, from the admission above.

But comprehension errors by the reader are also a problem in this arena.

By your own admission the reader cannot be blamed for decoding errors that may occur while unraveling your cryptic speech.

In order to explain new concepts one must use language that is new.

Deliberate obscurity is not innovative, nor is the use of abortions of science -- to leverage spurious beliefs -- anything new.

And I have not constructed facially false, nonsensical and absurd statements,

I'll take that as an admission that you obtained help in doing so.

I have used language in a new way.

The art of deception is very old.

I should have warned you that there are new ideas involved that require you to get out of your zone of comfort.

My zone of comfort is lies within the candid speech of scientists, which is why I recommended you should try applying it yourself.

The correct way to say that one must allow a born baby to die is to simply say it.

There is no correct way to lie.

The pro life movement claims a fetus is a baby, so the term "born baby" is relevant.

Having laid this factual predicate you forfeit any rightful complaints about references to Roe v Wade.

I doubt if I would have had to explain anything this complex to anyone in the form of a term paper.

Since the complexity of this topic is exceedingly shallow, this explains why you're bogged down here.

When observing and writing the laws I was assisted by a woman that was Phi Beta Kappa, Summa Cum Laude at a major eastern school. Of course she didn't assist here.

For that reason my references here shall mean The Laws of RussellCrawford, et al.

She will be sad that you have exposed me as a complete idiot, because she thinks I am not.

If you were "exposed as a complete idiot" and it was a consequence of my desire to bring the Science of Abortion into conjunction with the Abortion of Science, then this was as much as reflex response as anything, having long resented the social conservative agenda and its relentless attacks on Roe v Wade.

But then again that is just your opinion.

Your statement, that you were "exposed as a complete idiot" was a statement of your opinion, not mine. Indeed I think you have not been fully exposed.

By the way, what scientific laws have you been the first to observe and write about.

I have been the first to observe and write about the deliberate obscurity of the Laws of RussellCrawford, et al., which state that the Science of Abortion is inversely proportional to the Abortion of Science.

I bet you have actually written a few laws yourself, right?

You are the only person here claiming authorship of laws. I only claim discovery of the above law, not that I authored it. You authored it.

I did notice people were unable to make sense of them, but other less educated people did make sense.

Your ability to persuade illiterate people demonstrates that narcissism is the fodder of naiveté.

I am dealing with a controversial issue.

In fact controversy precedes you.

People fake not being able to understand for purposes of extending and confusing the conversation.

Which is why I am encouraging you to cease and desist.

My belief is that because people with less education can understand, the people on this site should be able to understand.

Your belief that science-illiterate people understand you comports with the Laws of RussellCrawford, et al., demonstrating once again that the Science of Abortion is inversely proportional to the Abortion of Science. A corollary to this is that the science-literate people will not understand you.

If they can't when others can, is that a problem with me or a problem with them?

Since the above mentioned laws impart to you the status of a demigod who reigns not only over the Supreme Court but over all of science, it's fair to say that you can claim anything you like without violating your own laws.

The onus is on me.

Indeed with power comes responsibility. Use it to clean up this thread.

And I am doing my duty by answering any questions that may be asked.

Answering in code may work for demigods, but mere mortals need the PIN number.

However, when I ask a person such a Fraggle to restate his question and he refuses, there is nothing I can do.

The first sign of trolling is friction with the mods, particularly one as bright and mellow as he, and may result in instant demotion from demigod status.

I can only answer questions if people work with me.

That should tell you that the power of persuasion is inversely proportional to the rate of obscurity,

There are fine distinctions that need to be made that support what I say.

Leaving the reader to decode obscure, cryptic and absurd speech is hardly a matter of making distinctions.

If a person refuses to acknowledge the distinction when it is made, is that my fault.

No, all of your language errors are entirely the reader's fault, since demigods are by definition indemnified and held harmless.

There is a distinction between two babies dying and saving one and the counterpart situation where there are two living babies and one is killed.

Allow me to tell you how the Laws work among mere mortals. Down here we have a law that states statistically independent events cannot be mutually exclusive. Now, as cryptic as that may seem to a demigod, it's actually just part of the Science of Abortion which, owing to its inverse proportionality to the Abortion of Science does not comport with any mnemonic devices or milestone markers you may need to "acknowledge the distinction", it nevertheless does reign over us -- and I hate to say this but: at the Supreme Commander of the Universe level, quite a few pay grades ahead of yours. So, unlike you, we must submit to its will.

The readers on this site started out by replying to me with a barrage of ad hominem remarks and they have not stopped.

Perhaps this post will apprise them of said Laws, such that any such future remarks will be properly classified as ad semideum.

You have dealt your share of ad hominem remarks as well.

And from now on they become ad semideum as well.

The use of ad hominems in our first exchange did not bother me

Maybe you were filled with the glory of the above said Laws.

but set up a wall whereby the readers had to defend their ad hominems.

Once you cripple the dialogue you are not in a position to complain of walls..

And they did so by refusing to read and by refusing to comment fairly.

Evidently you equate fairness with swallowing lies.

If they misunderstood what I was saying, then the correct thing for the reader to do was ask probing questions,

Blaming the reader is no cure for your admitted language errors.

not faint disbelief that I would condemn them for not understanding.

Recognizing that you are not in a position to condemn anyone but yourself, your generosity in doing so is duly noted.

The readers here immediately staked out their intent to prove that I am some kind of nut.

The up or down vote on your credibility was decided, among other things, once you proclaimed that statistically independent events are mutually exclusive.

And they along with you have continued that line of attack.

As these threads tend to run in shallow waters, we have customarily posted first principles of science and math in them, which, by definition, attack ignorance of same. Thus, we will universally state (and BTW that underlined bit is a HUGE requirement to distinguishing a law): statistically independent events are NOT mutually exclusive.

That is entirely unprofessional.

On the contrary the posters apply those same first principles every day within their professional capacities.

I am ashamed of the readers' actions.

It is understandable that you attach shame to first principles of math and science.

If in fact the readers wanted to understand what I am saying they should have asked questions, not used ad hominems.

If in fact you wanted to be understood you should have applied the principles of your freshman class in rhetoric rather than blaming readers for the state of this thread.

I have never based anything I have said on the Roe vs. Wade ruling as it is moot

You have entirely based your thesis on the covert statement that the Supreme Court erred in its decision.

when one brings into the equation the fact that one must allow the death of born babies in order to save a fetus that is viable.

Independent events are not mutually exclusive, therefore the claim you are killing one to save the other is false.

No, very roughly, the genotype is the code that builds the phenotype.

Ignoring the obscure genotype->phenotype reference, the non-viability of any fetus within the first trimester renders [whatever is hidden behind the obscure usage] moot. Thereafter, the question of viability is a matter of expert medical judgment, which renders [whatever is hidden behind the obscure usage] moot. Therefore the entire question of [whatever is hidden behind the obscure usage] is rendered moot for all cases, from conception through delivery or termination.

The human genotype can be thought of as the set of plans that is used to build the human phenotype.

You have not given any foundation for applying this to your denial of the Court's opinion. It is therefore frivolous..

No, your understanding of genotype and phenotype is incorrect.

Your understanding of phenotype and genotype is evident from the context of your posts, which have provided no grounds for injecting either one into the conversation.

The paragraphs about Roe vs. Wade were deleted, I am not interested in Roe.

Having laid the factual predicate for referring to Roe v Wade you forfeit all such complaints.

It is moot when the Law of Charity is considered.

The Laws of RussellCrawford et al. are rendered invalid by definition.

Viability is of no value until a baby is actually born.

Viability is of critical value to any person on trial for destroying a fetus.

Viable babies die before birth every day.

If they die simply because they were not viable, then that is irrelevant. If they die for any other reason, it is moot.

So they were not actually "viable" babies were they?

It was your premise they were viable, not mine. Make up your mind.

There is no way to prove an embryo is alive,

There are at least as many ways to prove an embryo is alive as there are ways to prove that a viable fetus was killed.

[or] has enough [DNA]

The spurious notion "enough DNA" is ungrounded and therefore falls.

human DNA

Since all humans possess human DNA, this falls by definition.

to live as a human

There is no way to prove a hypothetical, so the fragment "to live as a human" is spurious.

or if it will be alive at birth.

There is no way to prove a hypothetical, so the fragment "if it will be alive at birth" is spurious.

An ultrasound won't prove it is alive

There are at least as many ways to prove by sonogram that an embryo is alive as there are ways to prove that a viable fetus was killed.

or will live to birth

There is no way to prove a hypothetical, so the fragment "will live to birth" is spurious.

or even if it is human enough to live as a human.

Humans live in uncountable ways, none of which is afforded to a fetus if it is destroyed, and either none or one of which is afforded to any culprit found guilty of destroying it. However, all of that is moot, since there is no way to prove a hypothetical, and therefore your statement is also spurious.

In fact because the DNA must "express" the correct phenotype

There is no factual predicate linking "phenotype" to "abortion", nor are there any grounds for qualifying the phenotype as "correct ", therefore the claim " the DNA must "express" the correct phenotype" must be rejected.

one cannot tell until birth if the embryo will produce a living baby.

There is no way to prove a hypothetical, so the clause "if the embryo will produce a living baby" is spurious.

I am sorry, you just don't know what you are talking about.

You should be sorrier that the reader doesn't know what you are talking about.

There is a "potential life" that is all there is.

The opposite is being disputed: that the deprivation of a potential life from a viable fetus constitutes an element of the offense of criminal abortion.

The fact is that if the fetus cannot be proved to be alive

The premise "the fetus cannot be proved to be alive " is ungrounded, therefore the rest of the sentence falls.

or human,

A human fetus is by definition human. This therefore also falls.

and you must kill a live human to give it birth,

Independent events are not mutually exclusive, therefore the claim you are killing one to save the other is false.

there is no reason to force birth.

The subject of "forcing birth" is ungrounded and therefore falls.

In such a case one is simply killing one life to save another.

Independent events are not mutually exclusive, therefore the claim you are killing one to save the other is false.

Not having enough human DNA is the precise and correct usage. Until there is "expression" of the correct phenotype one cannot tell if the DNA is sufficient.

The factual predicate for attaching the relevance of "phenotype" to "abortion" has not been laid. More specifically, the technical relationship remains ungrounded in any fact or evidence adopted here. This claim therefore falls.

I am sorry, that is a fact. I can explain for you the process of expression, but I will not waste my time doing so if you are not going to read what I write.

As you have already admitted, the language of your claims is inherently incomprehensible, despite repeated requests for you to use candid plain speech. Here no one asked for your guidance in technical subjects. It’s merely been noted that this is ungrounded and therefore falls.

I have deleted your discussion of the Supreme Court because it is moot with respect to the information revealed by the Laws.

Roe v Wade is central to this thread since you are attacking the decision. It is relevant in connection to the biological definition of fetal viability since the case explains the science that informed the Court in its decision.

I also deleted your conversation about the Constitution. The Constitution is not relevant

Since Roe v Wade is relevant to this thread, and for all the reasons stated in Roe v Wade which establish the relevance of the Constitution to the topic of this thread, the Constitution is relevant to this thread, and it is relevant in connection to the biological definition of fetal viability.

to scientific laws.

The Laws of RussellCrawford are rendered invalid by definition.

I deleted your statements about state laws.

Since Roe v Wade was a state claim resolved at the Supreme Court, and for the reasons listed above, the topic of state laws regulating abortion is relevant to this thread.

They have no impact on scientific law.

The Laws of RussellCrawford are rendered invalid by definition.

I deleted your discussion about common law as it is moot also.

Since Roe v Wade decided (a) case(s) at bar in the courts of common law, the common law is relevant to this thread.

I deleted your remarks about religion.

Having laid the factual predicate by introducing moral considerations of abortion, you made religion relevant to this thread.

But those ethical and legal reasons[to protect the right of life retained by the viable fetus] are moot because you must let a born baby die to save the viable fetus.

Since the question of abortion revolves entirely around the discussion delivered by the Court in Roe v Wade, and since the ethical and legal boundaries in which abortions shall or shall not be conducted hinged entirely on a Court informed by science, the ethical and legal reasons to protect the right of life retained by the viable fetus will never be moot, but especially because of the absurd premises you have propounded here, and made so under the law which states statistically independent events are not mutually exclusive,

In such case you are killing one to save the other.

Independent events are not mutually exclusive, therefore the claim you are killing one to save the other is false.

No the choice you have is to save the fetus that "may be viable" by letting a born baby die. That is not respecting life.

Independent events are not mutually exclusive, therefore the claim you are killing one to save the other is false.

have already made it clear they are more interested in keeping the status quo than in learning anything from a person like me.

The status quo incorporates the Law of Independent and Mutually Exclusive Events. When you learn to propound clear, candid and plain speech, to be reasonable technically accurate, and to state claims within the conventions of standard rhetoric, you may achieve the status of a mentor. When you learn the Law of Independent and Mutually Exclusive Events, you can discard your Laws of RussellCrawford. Until then you are impeding yourself.

That is their right. They can close their minds.

Only an open mind can inform itself of the facts which hold you in check.

 

[RussellCrawford]

Seriously, people! I can't imagine why anyone is bothering with this thread. Crawford is obviously off his meds and couldn't find his way out of an open paper bag. Just let this thing die and MAYBE he'll eventually go away!

That is simply another ad hominem. If you have a valid remark that would disprove the law, then I would go away. See how simple that is.

 

[RussellCrawford]

I will take that as your admission that your speech is false, obscure, and incorrect.

You are making a false assumption fallacy, and because most of what follows is based upon that false assumption you wasted your time.

You should be disappointed that your misuse of these terms required me to object to them.

That is an unsupported fallacy.

Indeed unreasonably false, obscure and incorrect claims require us to decode your speech as best we can in order to try understanding them, and this does limit us. However, that reflects an increase, not a decrease, in the mental powers of your readers. And as long as you cling to the notion that obscurity is equivalent to revelation, that will pretty much limit your understanding about much of the world around you.

You haven't proved any incorrect claims. And the rest of your statement is based upon your assumption fallacy. You see the first thing you have to do is prove there is an incorrect statement. And your "opinion" of a law is not valid because laws can be disproved with solid facts.

Since you have attached the spurious idea science of abortion to what is actually an abortion of science there was no point in visiting your site.

That is an Ad Hominem based on a False Assumption.

Since you have attached the spurious idea Laws of Science to what are actually the Laws of RussellCrawford there was no point in visiting your site.

That is based on a false assumption.

Neither any information propounding an abortion of science nor the Laws of RussellCrawford are reasonable, therefore by avoiding your site I have reduced my risk of being infected by unreason.

That is another ad hominem based on a false assumption fallacy.

My struggles to decode your cryptic speech were set in motion when you decided to violate the standard rules of rhetoric.

Other people understand and you don't. Sounds like your problem to me.

Said the person who introduced abortion to the Biology forum.

Another ad hominem!

The Laws of RussellCrawford are rendered invalid by definition. Your lack of concern about Roe v Wade is made evident by your disrespect for the work done by the Court in its probe into the questions you have raised here. Indeed, while the Court involved itself with the Science of Abortion, the Laws of RussellCrawford have entirely concerned themselves with the Abortion of Science, hence your clash with the superior wisdom of the Court is understandable.

Another ad hominem based on a false assumption fallacy.

Viability is not a claim but an element of the offense of criminal abortion, and was made relevant once you laid the factual predicate that the Court's wisdom is inferior to yours.

The laws have no relationship to Roe vs Wade. You are attempting to build a Straw Man Fallacy.

Independent events are not mutually exclusive, therefore the claim you are killing one to save the other is false.

No one said they are, if you think you have an argument, then make it. Being vague is what you accuse me of, right?

"Right foundation" and "abortion of science" are incongruent, therefore the obscurity you are revealing is useless to me.

This is based on a False Assumption Fallacy.

I have read all or most of what you posted here, which is more than enough to detect the difference between Science of Abortion and Abortion of Science.

That is based upon your false assumption fallacy. You assume you know what I am saying and you don't.

Advice to be clear and accurate is always useful, which is why you also said your remarks will be of great assistance to me.

You have really made a false assumption fallacy here.

Indeed your lack of learning and communication skills are your second- and third-most fatal weaknesses.

Another ad hominem

I'm convinced you believe you were successful with them. In any case your failures to yourself linger in what you've posted here.

Another ad hominem

So it's settled then. You will deliberately persist with the use of obscure speech.

Others understand, so the speech is not obscure.

Deliberately, from the admission above.

False assumption fallacy

By your own admission the reader cannot be blamed for decoding errors that may occur while unraveling your cryptic speech.

False assumption fallacy

Deliberate obscurity is not innovative, nor is the use of abortions of science -- to leverage spurious beliefs -- anything new.

False assumption fallacy

I'll take that as an admission that you obtained help in doing so.

False assumption fallacy

The art of deception is very old.

You should know.

My zone of comfort is lies within the candid speech of scientists, which is why I recommended you should try applying it yourself.

Meaningless self aggrandizement.

There is no correct way to lie.

spurious comment

Having laid this factual predicate you forfeit any rightful complaints about references to Roe v Wade.

Roe vs. Wade is immaterial to the laws.

Since the complexity of this topic is exceedingly shallow, this explains why you're bogged down here.

Ad hominem

For that reason my references here shall mean The Laws of RussellCrawford, et al.

ad hominem

If you were "exposed as a complete idiot" and it was a consequence of my desire to bring the Science of Abortion into conjunction with the Abortion of Science, then this was as much as reflex response as anything, having long resented the social conservative agenda and its relentless attacks on Roe v Wade.

False assumption fallacy

Your statement, that you were "exposed as a complete idiot" was a statement of your opinion, not mine. Indeed I think you have not been fully exposed.

False context fallacy, False assumption fallacy

I have been the first to observe and write about the deliberate obscurity of the Laws of RussellCrawford, et al., which state that the Science of Abortion is inversely proportional to the Abortion of Science.

ad hominem

You are the only person here claiming authorship of laws. I only claim discovery of the above law, not that I authored it. You authored it.

ad hominem

Your ability to persuade illiterate people demonstrates that narcissism is the fodder of naiveté

ad hominem

In fact controversy precedes you.

This is another ad hominem when in context.

Which is why I am encouraging you to cease and desist.

ad hominem

Your belief that science-illiterate people understand you comports with the Laws of RussellCrawford, et al., demonstrating once again that the Science of Abortion is inversely proportional to the Abortion of Science. A corollary to this is that the science-literate people will not understand you.

ad hominem

Since the above mentioned laws impart to you the status of a demigod who reigns not only over the Supreme Court but over all of science, it's fair to say that you can claim anything you like without violating your own laws.

ad hominem

Indeed with power comes responsibility. Use it to clean up this thread.

ad hominem

Answering in code may work for demigods, but mere mortals need the PIN number.

ad hominem

The first sign of trolling is friction with the mods, particularly one as bright and mellow as he, and may result in instant demotion from demigod status.

ad hominem

That should tell you that the power of persuasion is inversely proportional to the rate of obscurity,

Fragment of an ad hominem.

Leaving the reader to decode obscure, cryptic and absurd speech is hardly a matter of making distinctions.

As you said people of lesser intelligence than you understand.

No, all of your language errors are entirely the reader's fault, since demigods are by definition indemnified and held harmless.

My claim is that normal people understand. What I say is very clear to those that do not live in a world filled with ad hominem thoughts. Perhaps you should value other people?

Allow me to tell you how the Laws work among mere mortals. Down here we have a law that states statistically independent events cannot be mutually exclusive.

There are no statistically independent events claimed.

Now, as cryptic as that may seem to a demigod, it's actually just part of the Science of Abortion which, owing to its inverse proportionality to the Abortion of Science does not comport with any mnemonic devices or milestone markers you may need to "acknowledge the distinction", it nevertheless does reign over us -- and I hate to say this but: at the Supreme Commander of the Universe level, quite a few pay grades ahead of yours. So, unlike you, we must submit to its will.

ad hominem

Perhaps this post will apprise them of said Laws, such that any such future remarks will be properly classified as ad semideum.

ad hominem

And from now on they become ad semideum as well.

ad hominem

Maybe you were filled with the glory of the above said Laws.

ad hominem

Once you cripple the dialogue you are not in a position to complain of walls..

ad hominem

Evidently you equate fairness with swallowing lies.

ad hominem

Blaming the reader is no cure for your admitted language errors.

false assumption fallacy

Recognizing that you are not in a position to condemn anyone but yourself, your generosity in doing so is duly noted.

false assumption fallacy

The up or down vote on your credibility was decided, among other things, once you proclaimed that statistically independent events are mutually exclusive.

False assumption fallacy

As these threads tend to run in shallow waters, we have customarily posted first principles of science and math in them, which, by definition, attack ignorance of same. Thus, we will universally state (and BTW that underlined bit is a HUGE requirement to distinguishing a law): statistically independent events are NOT mutually exclusive.

Some readers on a site that base their ideas on ad hominem fallacies, false analogy fallacies and false assumption fallacies may agree with you. But simply saying in one place "statistically independent events are mutually exclusive" and saying in another "statistically independent events cannot be mutually exclusive" will not cover both bases. You need to not only choose which you are standing behind, but explain why it applies to anything I have said.

On the contrary the posters apply those same first principles every day within their professional capacities.

Which of those two principles do they apply. Or do they apply both in arguments, as you have done.

It is understandable that you attach shame to first principles of math and science.

ad hominem

If in fact you wanted to be understood you should have applied the principles of your freshman class in rhetoric rather than blaming readers for the state of this thread.

I don't blame readers, some readers understand and others don't. According to you, the less intelligent do understand and the intelligent don't . I am fine with that. I suspect that the intelligent do understand as well.

You have entirely based your thesis on the covert statement that the Supreme Court erred in its decision.

I admire the rulings of the Supreme Court of the United States and revere their opinions, especially with regard to abortion. I support the Constitution of the United States. Your claims otherwise are simply calculated falsehoods.

Independent events are not mutually exclusive, therefore the claim you are killing one to save the other is false.

That is an "Intentional Fallacy" some would call it a lie. If you had done your homework you would know that no one claims that anyone is killing one to save another. My claim is very clear, 7 billion people are dying a person choses which to save. As a result the others die. Do you understand the difference? In your claim a person is killing one to save the other, in my claim one is choosing to save one when all are dying. I have given analogies and proof in every form, by you choose not to read the proof.

Ignoring the obscure genotype->phenotype reference, the non-viability of any fetus within the first trimester renders [whatever is hidden behind the obscure usage] moot. Thereafter, the question of viability is a matter of expert medical judgment, which renders [whatever is hidden behind the obscure usage] moot. Therefore the entire question of [whatever is hidden behind the obscure usage] is rendered moot for all cases, from conception through delivery or termination.

Medical judgment has no impact. A zygote/embryo/fetus cannot be proved "scientifically" to be alive or human until it is born. A medical judgment is valid to determine the risk the fetus will either live or die by a medical judgment cannot prove a fetus will be born. This is not debatable.

You have not given any foundation for applying this to your denial of the Court's opinion. It is therefore frivolous..

Another "Intentional Fallacy", I agree with the opinion of the court. It is based upon science of the period. It is not based upon the "Scientific Abortion Laws". In fact the viability portion of the ruling is brilliant.

Your understanding of phenotype and genotype is evident from the context of your posts, which have provided no grounds for injecting either one into the conversation.

I don't agree.

Having laid the factual predicate for referring to Roe v Wade you forfeit all such complaints.

False assumption fallacy

The Laws of RussellCrawford et al. are rendered invalid by definition.

ad hominem

Viability is of critical value to any person on trial for destroying a fetus.

Intentional Fallacy

If they die simply because they were not viable, then that is irrelevant. If they die for any other reason, it is moot.

I don't agree.

It was your premise they were viable, not mine. Make up your mind.

Intentional Fallacy

There are at least as many ways to prove an embryo is alive as there are ways to prove that a viable fetus was killed.

So what?

The spurious notion "enough DNA" is ungrounded and therefore falls.

ad hominem

Since all humans possess human DNA, this falls by definition.

Simply stating a proposition will not prove the proposition to be true.

There is no way to prove a hypothetical, so the fragment "to live as a human" is spurious.

Intentional Fallacy
You are applying your rule to a fragment. No fragment can be proved.

There is no way to prove a hypothetical, so the fragment "if it will be alive at birth" is spurious.[/quote}

Intentional fallacy

There are at least as many ways to prove by sonogram that an embryo is alive as there are ways to prove that a viable fetus was killed.

No there are not. One cannot tell if the fetus is brain dead by viewing a sonogram or that it will be born alive.

There is no way to prove a hypothetical, so the fragment "will live to birth" is spurious.

Intentional fallacy

Humans live in uncountable ways, none of which is afforded to a fetus if it is destroyed, and either none or one of which is afforded to any culprit found guilty of destroying it. However, all of that is moot, since there is no way to prove a hypothetical, and therefore your statement is also spurious.

False Assumption Fallacy

There is no factual predicate linking "phenotype" to "abortion", nor are there any grounds for qualifying the phenotype as "correct ", therefore the claim " the DNA must "express" the correct phenotype" must be rejected.

Intentional Fallacy

There is no way to prove a hypothetical, so the clause "if the embryo will produce a living baby" is spurious.

False Assumption Fallacy
Intentional Fallacy

You should be sorrier that the reader doesn't know what you are talking about.

LOL fallacy (I invented that) Your claim that people of lesser intelligence understand but that "intelligent" people don't understand is an Intentional Fallacy and is counter intuitive.

The opposite is being disputed: that the deprivation of a potential life from a viable fetus constitutes an element of the offense of criminal abortion.

No it is not. I have never made such a claim. It is simply another intentional fallacy.

The premise "the fetus cannot be proved to be alive " is ungrounded, therefore the rest of the sentence falls.

Intentional Fallacy

A human fetus is by definition human. This therefore also falls.

Intentional fallacy. I have always claimed a human fetus is human. A zygote/embryo/fetus cannot be proved to be a human fetus until it is born. Lets look at what you say and what I say. You speak in retrospective terms saying that a human fetus is a human. In retrospective sense it is true, but it is not true a prospective sense. Sorry, you can't prove a fetus is a human fetus, until it is born. It may be incapable of living as a human because it is lacking essential human DNA or it may not live for other reasons. The fetus cannot be proved to be have the properties of being live human fetus until it is born.

Independent events are not mutually exclusive, therefore the claim you are killing one to save the other is false.

Intentional fallacy. No one has ever claimed that a person is killing one to save the other. The claim is that 7 billion are dying, if you choose to save one, the others will die. If you choose to save a fetus instead of a human, all humans will die including the pre-human fetus you save. The fetus will possibly die before or shortly after birth and the humans will die at whatever current rate of death is occurring. Currently humans are dying at the rate of 1.8 per second.

The subject of "forcing birth" is ungrounded and therefore falls.

Intentional Fallacy
Assumption Fallacy

Independent events are not mutually exclusive, therefore the claim you are killing one to save the other is false.

Intentional Fallacy

The factual predicate for attaching the relevance of "phenotype" to "abortion" has not been laid. More specifically, the technical relationship remains ungrounded in any fact or evidence adopted here. This claim therefore falls.

Intentional Fallacy

As you have already admitted, the language of your claims is inherently incomprehensible, despite repeated requests for you to use candid plain speech. Here no one asked for your guidance in technical subjects. It’s merely been noted that this is ungrounded and therefore falls.

Assumption Fallacy

Roe v Wade is central to this thread since you are attacking the decision. It is relevant in connection to the biological definition of fetal viability since the case explains the science that informed the Court in its decision.

Roe is not relevant to this law.

Since Roe v Wade is relevant to this thread, and for all the reasons stated in Roe v Wade which establish the relevance of the Constitution to the topic of this thread, the Constitution is relevant to this thread, and it is relevant in connection to the biological definition of fetal viability.

I agree with Roe and the viability tenet, but there is not connection with this law.
So your remarks are "Assumption Fallacies and Intentional Fallacies".

The Laws of RussellCrawford are rendered invalid by definition.

ad hominem

Since Roe v Wade was a state claim resolved at the Supreme Court, and for the reasons listed above, the topic of state laws regulating abortion is relevant to this thread.

No it is not. It is an attempt to open a 'False Analogy Fallacy and a Straw Man Fallacy."

The Laws of RussellCrawford are rendered invalid by definition.

ad hominem

Since Roe v Wade decided (a) case(s) at bar in the courts of common law, the common law is relevant to this thread.

It is a Straw Man Fallacy.

Having laid the factual predicate by introducing moral considerations of abortion, you made religion relevant to this thread.

Straw Man Fallacy

Since the question of abortion revolves entirely around the discussion delivered by the Court in Roe v Wade, and since the ethical and legal boundaries in which abortions shall or shall not be conducted hinged entirely on a Court informed by science, the ethical and legal reasons to protect the right of life retained by the viable fetus will never be moot, but especially because of the absurd premises you have propounded here, and made so under the law which states statistically independent events are not mutually exclusive,

Straw Man Fallacy

Independent events are not mutually exclusive, therefore the claim you are killing one to save the other is false.

Intentional Fallacy
No one has ever claimed that a person is killing one to save the other. One is allowing 7 billion to die to save another.
One is not making a choice to kill, one is making a choice not to save. The result is that a born person dies while what is only a potential unborn person may also die or live. The key is that one is claiming to save life while actually letting one person die in an attempt to save another tissue that may already be dead and cannot be proved to be alive or capable of life.

Independent events are not mutually exclusive, therefore the claim you are killing one to save the other is false.

Intentional Fallacy

The status quo incorporates the Law of Independent and Mutually Exclusive Events. When you learn to propound clear, candid and plain speech, to be reasonable technically accurate, and to state claims within the conventions of standard rhetoric, you may achieve the status of a mentor. When you learn the Law of Independent and Mutually Exclusive Events, you can discard your Laws of RussellCrawford. Until then you are impeding yourself.

False Analogy Fallacy
False Assumption Fallacy
Intentional Fallacy

Only an open mind can inform itself of the facts which hold you in check.

Intentional Fallacy


Almost everything you have stated here is a foundation to present a Straw Man Fallacy based upon a series of False Analogy Fallacies and False Assumption Fallacies and Intentional Fallacies.

For example you start by making False Assumptions with regard to me submitting to your accusations that I do not understand the constructions I have used to outline the laws. It is a False Assumption Fallacy because I made it very clear that because people you define to be as being of a lower intelligence can understand you should be able to understand. I believe you can understand (regardless of any belief of my failures you imagine) and are attempting an Intentional Fallacy hoping to convince others that intelligent people cannot understand the concepts that un-intelligent people can understand. That is counter-intuitive and therefore you must prove that you could not understand what a lesser intelligent person can understand. You have offered no proof.

You use two different constructions of your tenet of construction saying both "statistically independent events I]"[cannot and can[/I] be mutually exclusive."

I believe you mean the standard construction as outlined on this page: http://www.probabilitytheory.info/content/item/3-independent-or-mutually-exclusive-event

In your assertions you claim that my words imply that one must kill a fetus in order to save a baby. Of course I have never said such a thing. In such an event, where you falsely attribute a belief to be my belief, "killing the fetus" has no nexus to "saving a baby."
In my case the issue is a "choice of which to save" has nexus to both the fetus and the baby.

In an analogy of my construction of the law there are 7 billion humans dying and they will continue to die at the rate 57 million per year. If one born person of the 7 billion is saved for a period of time then the rate of death will be altered to 57 million minus 1/period of time, deaths. The period of time saved is related to the issue of triage and can mean that a born baby is saved until natural death 78 years later or that a born person is saved for a short period of time. It all depends on the efficiency of a system of triage. In any case a born person will be saved for a period of time. If a fetus is saved then the number of born people dying remains the same and is altered by the efficiency of miscarriage at the time of the attempted saving of a fetus. Why, because a choice to save the fetus is a choice not to save the born person. A fetus only has a potential chance of living.

Your attempt to use fallacies has failed. If you have real insightful comments, then by all means, make them. However in your next post I will not acknowledge your ad hominem remarks or your other fallacies. I will however address any valid argument you present.

If you think I have missed a point or have ignored something that is relevant, please bring it to my attention. It is my intent to answer all valid questions.

I am quite busy right now and don't have time to go back in your list of fallacies. So I am posting the draft copy.

 

[(Q)]

In an analogy of my construction of the law there are 7 billion humans dying and they will continue to die at the rate 57 million per year.

Ah, so it appears you didn't read that link I provided explaining what laws are in science and are continuing to dishonestly state your assertions are laws.

 

[RussellCrawford]

Ah, so it appears you didn't read that link I provided explaining what laws are in science and are continuing to dishonestly state your assertions are laws.

If you would learn to read the Law it says nothing about 57 million a year. The Law says "There are more people dying than can be saved"

That is what the Law says. You need to quote the law instead of making things up and then you won't make false allegations about what it says. And you might read in the sentence the word "analogy" and question what it may mean. Then you can pose a question that does not include a false attribution.

 

[(Q)]

If you would learn to read the Law it says nothing about 57 million a year. The Law says "There are more people dying than can be saved"

Sorry, but that is not a law. You really should educate yourself in that regard.

That is what the Law says. You need to quote the law instead of making things up and then you won't make false allegations about what it says.

YOU are the one making stuff up.

 

[RussellCrawford]

You may want to read this to educate yourself:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_science

This is a quote from the site you suggest and my response is interspersed:

Scientific laws:
"1.summarize a large collection of facts determined by experiment into a single statement,"

The "Law of Charity" states "There are more people dying than can be saved." The law is based upon the fact that throughout history all naturally born people have died and the implication is that all naturally born people will die in the future. In the course of the compilation of the Law it was determined that all empirical data supported the Law.

"2.can usually be formulated mathematically as one or several statements or equation, or at least stated in a single sentence, so that it can be used to predict the outcome of an experiment, given the initial, boundary, and other physical conditions of the processes which take place,"

The law is comprised of a single sentence "There are more people dying than can be saved."

"3.are strongly supported by empirical evidence - they are scientific knowledge that experiments have repeatedly verified (and never falsified). Their accuracy does not change when new theories are worked out, but rather the scope of application, since the equation (if any) representing the law does not change. As with other scientific knowledge, they do not have absolute certainty like mathematical theorems or identities, and it is always possible for a law to be overturned by future observations."

All empirical data supports the law as shown and it can be disproved if any conflicting data is found. For example if there are naturally born unaltered people that be found to live infinitely, the law is false.

"4.are often quoted as a fundamental controlling influence rather than a description of observed facts, e.g. "the laws of motion require that..."

Popular agreement is a time dependent requirement that can only come after the law is proved to exist for a period of time that people can generally be aware of its tenets. Regardless, as shown above, it is proved to be the fundamental controlling influence with regard to abortion.

 

[RussellCrawford]

Sorry, but that is not a law. You really should educate yourself in that regard.



YOU are the one making stuff up.

You are posting an "Intentional Fallacy" as proved by the fact that your statement as to whether or not the "Law of Charity" is or is not a law is disproved by your own citation.
The scientific fact is that the tenets of the law are true and the law meets all the requirements for a law.

Your claim must be supported by substantial evidence due to the fact that your own citation proves you wrong. If you have something, post it.

 

[(Q)]

You are posting an "Intentional Fallacy" as proved by the fact that your statement as to whether or not the "Law of Charity" is or is not a law is disproved by your own citation.
The scientific fact is that the tenets of the law are true and the law meets all the requirements for a law.

No, it does not meet the requirements, you need educate yourself as to what laws are in science. Please do that.

 

[RussellCrawford]

No, it does not meet the requirements, you need educate yourself as to what laws are in science. Please do that.

What are we playing "Hide the definition of the law".

I have given you two definitions of what comprises a law and the Law of Charity fulfills all the tenets of both definitions. If you have some hidden definition of what comprises a law, then by all means post your definition. But it will make no difference because this Law meets at least one definition of what is a law. To disprove this law you would have to disprove all other laws based upon the same two definitions as met by this Law.

 

[(Q)]

This is a quote from the site you suggest and my response is interspersed:

Scientific laws:
"1.summarize a large collection of facts determined by experiment into a single statement,"

The "Law of Charity" states "There are more people dying than can be saved." The law is based upon the fact that throughout history all naturally born people have died and the implication is that all naturally born people will die in the future. In the course of the compilation of the Law it was determined that all empirical data supported the Law.

Sorry, but that does follow logically.

"2.can usually be formulated mathematically as one or several statements or equation, or at least stated in a single sentence, so that it can be used to predict the outcome of an experiment, given the initial, boundary, and other physical conditions of the processes which take place,"

The law is comprised of a single sentence "There are more people dying than can be saved."

Again, that is not a law, it is merely an illogical assertion.

"3.are strongly supported by empirical evidence - they are scientific knowledge that experiments have repeatedly verified (and never falsified). Their accuracy does not change when new theories are worked out, but rather the scope of application, since the equation (if any) representing the law does not change. As with other scientific knowledge, they do not have absolute certainty like mathematical theorems or identities, and it is always possible for a law to be overturned by future observations."

All empirical data supports the law as shown and it can be disproved if any conflicting data is found. For example if there are naturally born unaltered people that be found to live infinitely, the law is false.

You have not provided a shred of empirical data nor have provided any equations to support the law.

"4.are often quoted as a fundamental controlling influence rather than a description of observed facts, e.g. "the laws of motion require that..."

Popular agreement is a time dependent requirement that can only come after the law is proved to exist for a period of time that people can generally be aware of its tenets. Regardless, as shown above, it is proved to be the fundamental controlling influence with regard to abortion.

No, that has not been proved.

 

[(Q)]

What are we playing "Hide the definition of the law".

I have given you two definitions of what comprises a law and the Law of Charity fulfills all the tenets of both definitions. If you have some hidden definition of what comprises a law, then by all means post your definition. But it will make no difference because this Law meets at least one definition of what is a law. To disprove this law you would have to disprove all other laws based upon the same two definitions as met by this Law.

Again, and for the last time, you need to educate yourself as to what comprises a law in science.

 

[RussellCrawford]

Again, and for the last time, you need to educate yourself as to what comprises a law in science.

So you have no proof. Sorry, if you find proof, post it.

 

[RussellCrawford]

Sorry, but that does follow logically..

I assume you mean "does not" rather than "does". But I may be wrong, it could be an admission of the truth of the statement.

That is simply an ad hominem fallacy with no factual basis. If you believe it does not follow logically, prove it and it will not be a fallacy.

Again, that is not a law, it is merely an illogical assertion..

That is an ad hominem fallacy that does not have any merit at all. If you can prove an illogical assertion, then do so and it will no longer be a personal attack.

You have not provided a shred of empirical data nor have provided any equations to support the law..

I have provided all the empirical data required on the page I linked: http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com If you want different data or more data, you are on the internet and can simply search Google. Perhaps you will find that some group of humans live eternally.

There is no need to provide equations as they are not required.

No, that has not been proved.

Yes it has. If you think not, explain why. I have already proved my points.

 

[(Q)]

That is simply an ad hominem fallacy with no factual basis.

You should probably educate yourself on fallacies, too. You don't appear to understand them, either.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

 

[RussellCrawford]

You should probably educate yourself on fallacies, too. You don't appear to understand them, either.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

Thanks, your link supports what I say. Once you strip away the false analogies and false claims one is left with nothing but a personal attack.

Like I said in an earlier post, if your statements are true, there is no ad hominem. But because your statements are pure fallacy, your statements are left with nothing but personal attack. Now support your false allegations and you will have proved me wrong. I will then remove my claim of the use of an ad hominem.

 

[(Q)]

Thanks, your link supports what I say. Once you strip away the false analogies and false claims one is left with nothing but a personal attack.

I said, "Sorry, but that does follow logically" which is not a personal attack, you should educate yourself in that regard. I provided a link for you to do so.

 

[RussellCrawford]

I said, "Sorry, but that does follow logically" which is not a personal attack, you should educate yourself in that regard. I provided a link for you to do so.

It is a false statement. There is nothing left after the false statement but a personal attack. If you had supported your claim with proof or attempted to support it with proof, it would not be an ad hominem attack. But because the obvious intent was to imply that I post work that does not follow logically, it is an ad hominem.

Your link agrees with me. You cannot post personal attacks.

 

[(Q)]

It is a false statement. There is nothing left after the false statement but a personal attack. If you had supported your claim with proof or attempted to support it with proof, it would not be an ad hominem attack. But because the obvious intent was to imply that I post work that does not follow logically, it is an ad hominem.

Your link agrees with me. You cannot post personal attacks.

Allow me to show you what constitutes a personal attack.

"You are complete and total idiot."

That is a personal attack. Do you understand the difference between that and...?

"Sorry, but that does follow logically."

 

[RussellCrawford]

Allow me to show you what constitutes a personal attack.

"You are complete and total idiot."

That is a personal attack. Do you understand the difference between that and...?

"Sorry, but that does follow logically."

If I am a complete and total idiot, that is not a personal attack.

It is because I am not a complete and total idiot that it is a personal attack.

I did not post anything that does not follow logically.

So your insult that I do is a personal attack.