If we look at morality from a mathematical perspective we start getting into teh realm of corporate number slinging, where for example the radiation sheilding on a nuclear reactor is determined by how many people can they make allowance for dying based upon an asssigned economic value to human life (and yes, that is how they determine how much sheilding to put on). now sperm costs $200- $600 and currently the EPA has put the value of a human life at $6.9 million, BP puts it at $10 million, a human egg (unfertelized) costs in total with agency fees and so forth is about $12,000. A Time article I could not quite pull up (kept getting redirected) had $129,000 as the value of extending a human life by 1 year.
Of course when it comes to actually supporting children the US government does a lousy job- it reduces welfare benefits for at risk children to spend the money on teh elderly because teh elderly vote and children are not able to, then the same politicians complaign about a lack of population to support medicare because of abortions. Because in the end when you involve politics it doesn't matter what the topic is, it all comes down to robbing Peter to pay Paul because Paul can help you get elected.

Bear in mind, the majority of those costs for sperm and egg are for the administrative and extraction costs, not for the egg itself. I'm not sure if those numbers should really be relied on.

The bit about politicians is right on, though.

Been a little short on time and energy lately with some personal issues, but I do intent on getting back to Katisara on his thoughtful response. However, I saw this today, and felt compelled to report it.

The Ohio House passed a bill today, HB 125, that bans abortion from the moment that a doctor can perceive a heart-beat in the fetus. After looking up the matter and trying to nail down roughly how far along that is, that would make it...between 4 and 8 weeks, with the majority being around 6 weeks. One to two months, which is roughly the time women even begin to have the earliest notion that they are pregnant. Way, way lower than the lowest limits myself or Katisara have been talking about.

According to the legislature, this doesn't ban abortions. I suppose, a woman can, somehow, figure out they are pregnant at 3 weeks, they can legally have an abortion at that point. It just seems highly unlikely that they would. It effectively ends abortion in the state for the vast majority.

There's also a rather sticky situation in Kansas regarding essentially regulating abortion clinics into non-existence. As I said before, it looks like Republicans on the many state-levels this year are going for broke when it comes to stopping abortions.

Interesting.

I was thinking about this topic lately as well. We've all agreed that there are qualities that make murder wrong (such as self-awareness), although we disagree on the details of which qualities those are. Speaking for myself, those qualities would probably include self-awareness, intelligence and, well, perhaps some degree of independence. Those qualities make killing a person different from say killing my cat. And as most of us have agreed, there's nothing a newborn possesses regarding those traits that a full-term fetus doesn't possess.

So the conclusion I've been toying with is that I've been looking at things the wrong way; morally, perhaps killing a fetus isn't 'as dark as' killing a newborn, rather, killing a newborn is 'as light as' killing a fetus. A newborn does not possess these qualities to any significant degree. Infants don't possess any of those qualities until, at minimum around a year, and every biologist in the world will point out that humans are 'born too soon'. So perhaps we should put killing newborns into the same category of 'unfortunate, but sometimes acceptable in view of the greater good' as abortion, from a moral perspective. Legally, of course, we need our arbitrary line; you can't say killing a newborn is okay but killing a one-month old is not. So our arbitrary line is drawn at birth.

Thoughts?

I do not consider birth arbitrary. Birth is when many people beyond the mother/incubation unit (depending on perspective) have actual direct exposure to the child. Birth is also a traumatic experience which appears to kick start the cognitive processes of teh brain into recognition of one's self as something seperate from one's environment. To call birth an arbitrary point is to blatantly disregard the miraculous nature of this event (from an emotional impact perspective, clearly each birth does not require divine intervention) and turn aside thousands to millions of years of human history, understanding, and culture for the sake of making an argument.

Alright, well ... I'll agree it's traumatic. However, from the three births I've attended, I wouldn't consider any of them 'miraculous'. And even if I did, neither of us can prove 'miraculous' as an objective fact. I'm not sure why you include 'other people can have direct exposure' as an important reason. As I said before, killing a child raised by wolves is probably just as bad as killing the child of Angelina Jolie. The number of people who see said child doesn't change the situation.

That birth 'kickstarts' the cognitive process is, well, unclear. If the baby's brain is significantly different (such as, before it was not self-aware and now it is), I'd like to see any evidence for that. If you mean it begins the process towards whatever critical cognitive processes you think are important, well ... yeah. But conception starts that process too. So what?

Killing a child under the age of 2 months raised by wolves is not really as bad as a killing a child raised by angelina Jolie or any person- still very bad since teh child is developing conciousness and recognizes itself as an independant entity but on the other hand the death doesn't have the same impact on the lives of other people arround it because simply speaking tehre aren't other people arround it.
To put it in another framework a Coyote and a dog are very similar in terms of genetics, physiology and psychology, but killing a coyote is considered to be a public service while killing teh familly dog is considered to be a prosecutorial act. I personally believe that somewhere between "a handfull of cells" and "full blown human being" there is a stage where the same socialization situation applies to a baby as applies to a canine- namely having an impact on lives arround it makes it socially a person even if biologically/psychologically it is not one.
Which is where the reference to the non-litteral miracle of childbirth comes from- while the newborn is begining the process of developing it's sense of self it much more rapidly gains a community of people who identify with the infant and would be hurt by the loss.

Have you ever spent any time with a child under the age of 2 months?



If I kill a coyote, I pay a fine because coyotes are a protected species where I live. If I kill your dog, I pay a fine because your dog is your property. Yes, the dog has 'value' because it has 'social connections', but only in the sense that it is property. Are you suggesting that a newborn has value in the same way that my car has value?



Babies can recognize voices they've heard in the womb. People can interact with babies in the womb. I have seen people ready to kill themselves because of stillbirths, and people who have given birth and put their babies in the dumpster (before anyone else met said baby).

You are making huge generalizations, without objective evidence, and expecting them to be self-evident. They aren't, and I disagree very strongly.

This statement has me at a loss.  Apparently the worth of a human life is based on it being around people.  Am I to gather that a human life, much different than a dog by the way, is only worth the value others place upon it?

If so this opens up the wonderful idea of ridding ourselves of those people who are undesired.  You know, the humans who have little value to us.

Killing a child under the age of 2 months raised by wolves is not really as bad as a killing a child raised by angelina Jolie or any person- still very bad since teh child is developing conciousness and recognizes itself as an independant entity but on the other hand the death doesn't have the same impact on the lives of other people arround it because simply speaking tehre aren't other people arround it.

All human life is equally valuable. Period. End of story.

Not that I disagree with you, but why?

In reply to katisara (msg #336):

If I may Falkus, and you may disagree, but I would say that placing a high value on human life is the cornerstone of a moral center.  That being the plain and simple version.

In reply to Falkus (msg #335):

I think I'd disagree.  Hitler's value wasn't equal to Gandi's.  If they both needed an organ transplant to save their lives, and we only had on organ available to spare, I wouldn't just flip a coin in that case.  Likewise for a 90-year old on a respirator and an 18-year old.  Saying "all human life has value" is one thing, saying it all has exactly equal value is quite another.  There are plenty of situation in which, if I were put in the very unpleasant position of having to choose only one of two people I could save from death, I'd be able to come to a decision rather than just tossing a coin and saying "doesn't matter one way or the other."

As for the idea of there being value due to people caring about someone, I think there's something true in that.  It's not the only source of value, but it is one part (possibly a small part) that contributes to the whole.

I also think there's something to katisara's point that humans are born in a sort of larval stage, and I would tend to agree that in most cases, the value of the child increases from birth to some point in their earlier years (not sure just when it starts to level out).  I think if most parents had to make the horrible decision to save their infant or their toddler, if they had time to think it out and weigh up the options, would choose to save the toddler.  In a "no time to think-pick one now or they both die!" situation, I could see it going the either way, I think.  I've actually been thinking about this a bit lately, and was wondering if perhaps has to do with the expected remaining lifetime.  The expected remaining lifetime of a person actually increases as time goes by during their very early life, because infants are unfortunately not as good at surviving.  Eventually kids reach a point (not exactly sure the age, but would estimate it around 2--anyone know better?) where their probably going to either die of old age or some random accident (which is more or less just as likely to happen at any stage), rather than illness or the like.  The comparatively high rate of mortality of infants means their chances of living to 70 are a bit less than say a toddler, so their expected remaining life is actually shorter.  I think the expected remaining life gets factored into how we react to deaths.  I think most people would be hit harder by losing a 10 year old child than by losing an infant or an 80-year old parent, say.  It always hurts losing a loved one, but some losses hurt more than others, I would propose.

For clarity's sake, and to try to avoid strawmanning that might occur, please note that saying "one thing has more value than the other" is not the same as saying "one of them has no value."  Also, saying "if I were forced to save only one of them, I'd choose X rather than Y" is not the same as saying "it's okay to kill Y" or "Y has no value."

1) Yes I have spent time around children under 2 months, I have 4 children, and only one of them was adopted, so I have been there from the birth process on 3 times anow and my youngest was born in April. I realize it may fly in the face of some people's prejudices for someone to be both pro choice and a parent, but in fact it is not an uncommon situation.
2) No, it is not the same as your car, your car can be replaced and is mass produced, which is why I used other animals as a basis of comparison rather than personal property. The fact is that teh criteria for teh value of life are multi-dimentional and include both the social and developmental aspects- a dog or very young child which people have formed an attachment to does have more social value than a feral dog- last I was aware there was still a public reward for killing coyotes in texas.
3) I am saying that the relationship possibility in teh womb only reallistically has the potential to exist with one person- the mother. If that does not exist then there is no real relationship. Sure there may be people who believe there is some othe relationship, but there are also people who kill themselves because their stalkee celebrity doesn't answer their mail. Hardly proof of the existance of a real relationship.

It's not that I don't believe pro-choice people can't have children. Just that I'm amazed people look at a one-month old and think the child is anywhere near 'self-aware'.

Regardless, it sounds like you don't have any support for your position except your personal opinions and experience. So ... I guess that's as far as we can take this discussion.

My children at least were very self aware from teh moment of birth- generally they were looking arround curiously within seconds of being born. On the other hand hypnotic regression shows a clear cognitive difference in memories from after birth and before, in which teh memories formed before being born are vague and without a sense of self.
http://quantumregressiontherapy.com/memoriesofwomb.htm
documents the non-conciousness quality of those emmories, though not as well as other sites I have seen- unfortunately I have to get to work and cannot locate them at the moment...

Hypnotic regression has failed to pass any peer-review and is not a scientifically accepted methodology any more than astrology or tarot reading are.

"Looking around curiously" is not self-awareness. Looking around isn't even a sign if curiosity. Babies instinctively turn towards light and sound, but that isn't an indication of curiosity any more than insects running from light and sound is a sign of fear.

http://www.independent.co.uk/n...lunteers-661134.html
and scientific review of hypnotic regression- though this one is for age regression not memory recovery:
http://www.psychosomaticmedici...nt/24/3/286.abstract

So yes, it is scientific and peer reviewed.

If someone truly believes that abortion = murder of babies, then wouldn't the murder of an abortion doctor, or the fire bombing of an abortion center, be a morally positive thing to do?

I'm not suggesting people do it, but what's wrong with that logic?

We should educate those who fail to recognize human rights, not kill them. We should also try to enshrine human rights in law, and once they are recognized in law, people who violate them should be prosecuted.

The most common response to abortion that I get is a failure to recognize the humanity of the embryo & fetus. It's not a matter of deliberately doing evil, but in failing to recognize the evil of their actions. That calls for education.

People have no issue wanting to firebomb ISIS for beheading children.

Is someone truly believe an abortion doctor, and the nurses there, are murdering children through abortion, is that not similar?

EDIT:  I can see a distinction that you've made.  In the one case (ISIS) they are killing those who they know are human.  In the other case it could be argued that they do not consider them human.

So then would that not be then similar to the Nazi treatment of Jews - as subhuman, or almost nonhuman?
This message was last edited by the player at 23:17, Thu 23 Oct 2014.

I don't want to firebomb ISIS, but then the government didn't care about my opposition to war in Iraq ten years ago, and they don't care today.

If someone else wants to defend the perpetual war in Iraq, I'll try to discuss it with them. But I don't really think this is the forum for it.

Fair enough.  You may personally take that stance.

I am trying to see this from the point of view of MANY others, who feel that killing evil to prevent the death of good, is itself a good act.

It's hard to get inside the minds of some people. Do ISIS (and Nazis) think what they are doing is morally correct? I find that hard to conceive, but it is possible they think that way. (I don't want to turn this into a Christian vs Muslim thing, but I've heard it said and think it makes sense to consider that Jesus said to turn the other cheek and Mohammed killed his enemies by the sword. None of us Christians live up to the example of Jesus, but the example of Mohammed is easy to emulate.)

If a doctor performing abortions doesn't think it's an evil act, then killing him isn't "killing evil". His intention matters; he's not evil if he's not deliberately doing evil. He needs to learn that his actions are wrong, and that he's violating his oath by harming a patient.

Killing people may sound like a good solution to a problem for some, but it's putting the ends before the means, and it doesn't work. We've both read about a great deal of death through history because of people who believed violence was a better means than education. Even if one didn't care about personally doing evil, does it even work? Are there cases where people have 'won' against a social problem by taking the law into their own hands?

I replaced your doctor with something a bit easier to get angry at.  Are you still willing to hold to that same line of thinking?