Definition of a Person

[Moonbeam]

"Agreed. But the point of what I'm trying to do here is develop a definition that transcends religion, as religious-based arguments are dismissed out of hand by members of other religions. In my previous post, I wasn't trying to infer that I am searching for a model for my life. Instead, searching more for a specific plan of action or end goal."

First off I'm going to assume you mean 'implied' rather than 'inferred'. Seems to me I noticed you use that word wrong somewhere else too before. NOt trying to be picky but I can't make sense of what you said if you really mean inferred.

First off you are doing what I want to be able to do, to prove there is a good, or at least that's what I infer. Hehe. I could find no way to prove there is any meaning in the universe. I just know that while there is no meaning there is being and being is the real meaning of having meaning, at least to me. And the thing about being what is real inside, rediscovering love and joy, they can be expressed in purely scientific terms with no reference to God whatsoever. There is no way to distinguish whether Love is God or Love is the True Self because they are one in the same. The object of Love is Love.

In my opinion the meaning of life is to live. For a goal I would suggest you love as much as you can. As the Beatles tell us, the love you take is equal to the love you make. The lover loves the lover.

 

[Kibbo]

Cyclo,

Here's the schema that I've been working on in the back of my head; I've been struggling with these same ideas.


As I see it, the entire problem you are having is that you are framing the question in an unrealistic manner. My tentative view holds that rights are not black and white issues to be conferred or denied based on arbitrary lines. For any line you draw, one can come up with an example which would destroy that position. For instance: I pour two different brands of food into my cat's bowl. She chooses which one to eat. Further, someone without brainwaves does not have the ability to choose, or voice preference to, what they eat. My cat has a greater capacity for choice than that person. Thus, my cat deserves full rights, and that person looks like good cat food.

N.B., it's 4:49 right now, and I also have spent 12hrs studying math. I could use words to describe this in a manner which is less "icky" sounding to those who find arbitrary quantification inhuman, but I study rhetoric on my own time. This is the mode I'm in this week.

What you need to realize is that all beings should have moral weight, and so some kind of rights. But not all beings should have 100% wieght. Maybe you and I have a "moral coefficient" (MC) of 1.0, but my cat should have a MC of .4. And maybe that braindead person should have an MC of .3, or .5, depending on your view of which being has a greater right to live, if it were put as a zero-sum choice. You could make rankings within the animal kingdom that places cats between insects and chimps.

Then, the abortion issue becomes not whether or not the foetus has rights, but one of how much should those rights weigh. And then multiply the rights coefficient you have determined for the foetus (which could be 1.0 for pro-lifers, less for me) by the weight you give to it's right to life, and compare that to the 1.0 MC of the mother multiplied by the weight parameter you give to her right to determine the uses of her body. Then, you rationally optimize your moral choice (and here's the important part) and grieve for the moral losses you sustain.

Problems with this schema:

1. Individual preferences on moral ordinals will differ.
2. There is nothing inherent in the model which would prevent people from choosing evil moral ordinals based on race, gender, etc.

A work in progress, with a long reading list in my head (much of which I may be too lazy to get to). Hopefully I'll have it worked out in say, 40 years.

Basic point is, think in scales of grey.

 

[dmcowen674]

Wow, all this work to give rights to a couple of cells in a Science Dish but yet grown humans that make a decision they like the same gender have NO rights. Amazing.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: steeplerot
I'm glad to see the thread tone down but I know you mean well being worried about the smallest of all.
But this is just one of those issues Americans are going to have to agree to disagree about.
I and many people in this country feel war is murder also.
I don't think there is a way to truely argue or talk this issue out.
It's black and white and almost always is impossible to carry out a rational debate since it is all literal to each of us.
I can see that it is important to you and see why.
But this doesen't work,
we could focus on so much more need nowdays in USA and still let everyone have their way on these "wedge" issues. (If you find these things immoral then do not participate.)
It is the way this country works best.
If all decisions were based off of one point of view no matter how justified to one large majority we would not have a democracy would we?

This is not a thread on abortion per se. It's an attempt at logically determining who should be granted rights. So, if you please, quit trying to paint it as a wash and discuss it or move on.

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
"Agreed. But the point of what I'm trying to do here is develop a definition that transcends religion, as religious-based arguments are dismissed out of hand by members of other religions. In my previous post, I wasn't trying to infer that I am searching for a model for my life. Instead, searching more for a specific plan of action or end goal."

First off I'm going to assume you mean 'implied' rather than 'inferred'. Seems to me I noticed you use that word wrong somewhere else too before. NOt trying to be picky but I can't make sense of what you said if you really mean inferred.

First off you are doing what I want to be able to do, to prove there is a good, or at least that's what I infer. Hehe. I could find no way to prove there is any meaning in the universe. I just know that while there is no meaning there is being and being is the real meaning of having meaning, at least to me. And the thing about being what is real inside, rediscovering love and joy, they can be expressed in purely scientific terms with no reference to God whatsoever. There is no way to distinguish whether Love is God or Love is the True Self because they are one in the same. The object of Love is Love.

In my opinion the meaning of life is to live. For a goal I would suggest you love as much as you can. As the Beatles tell us, the love you take is equal to the love you make. The lover loves the lover.

Meh, I'm an engineer - I haven't taken an English class in who knows how long. I believe you're right though. I agree that one of, if not the, purpose is the love of others.

Originally posted by: Kibbo
My tentative view holds that rights are not black and white issues to be conferred or denied based on arbitrary lines. For any line you draw, one can come up with an example which would destroy that position. For instance: I pour two different brands of food into my cat's bowl. She chooses which one to eat. Further, someone without brainwaves does not have the ability to choose, or voice preference to, what they eat. My cat has a greater capacity for choice than that person. Thus, my cat deserves full rights, and that person looks like good cat food.

Exactly! This is was originally the entire goal of this exercise - to arrive at this conclusion. I'm glad someone else arrived at the same conclusion - maybe I'm not so far out there after all.

What you need to realize is that all beings should have moral weight, and so some kind of rights. But not all beings should have 100% wieght. Maybe you and I have a "moral coefficient" (MC) of 1.0, but my cat should have a MC of .4. And maybe that braindead person should have an MC of .3, or .5, depending on your view of which being has a greater right to live, if it were put as a zero-sum choice. You could make rankings within the animal kingdom that places cats between insects and chimps.

Then, the abortion issue becomes not whether or not the foetus has rights, but one of how much should those rights weigh. And then multiply the rights coefficient you have determined for the foetus (which could be 1.0 for pro-lifers, less for me) by the weight you give to it's right to life, and compare that to the 1.0 MC of the mother multiplied by the weight parameter you give to her right to determine the uses of her body. Then, you rationally optimize your moral choice (and here's the important part) and grieve for the moral losses you sustain.

I arrived at this same conclusion. I worked to disqualify animals by making certain distinctions - dogs and cats first, then monkeys (which were difficult). I think where we differ is in the interpretation. I provided the links regarding brainwaves above because they demonstrate that people can live without brain activity (the cryogenic surgery link is pretty cool - never knew such a thing existed until I started reading up on brainwaves), and that a lack of brainwaves doesn't necessarily constitute brain death.

So, the way I see it, as you yourself stated in your first paragraph, any line that you want to draw to limit these rights is arbitrary and can be readily defeated. Basing the distribution of rights on something arbitrary is to mix the concrete with the abstract, and I can't logically reconcile this difference. I further don't believe that you can compare the MC's for a woman and a fetus any more than you can for me and a homeless guy - it's still wrong for me to kill him, as he has rights, even if he does constantly harass me and ask me for money. This would be my choice to use my body as I see fit - killing him - though it would still violate the rights of another person. Thus, I think this draws us back to the initial question - what dividing line can be drawn to restrict certain rights to any group of humans? As you said, this restriction will be inherently arbitrary.

I guess where our primary difference lies is that I believe when a mother acted to have sex, she voided any say in how the consequences worked themselves out. If I give a gun to someone knowing that they may use it to kill someone, I'm still at least partially responsible, just as the bartender is who keeps refilling the drunk's mug and then sends him driving home. If you engage in the action, you must be prepared to accept the consequences, whether they appeal to you or not. As you say, mine is certainly a work in progress, so any intelligent discussion (thanks MB and Kibbo) is more than welcome.

 

[DealMonkey]

I say a person gets rights when he/she is born and not a moment before. In other words, I've pegged that point in human development arbitrarily. In other words: Because I say so. If that's not the same exact argument as everyone on the opposing side of this issue, I'll eat my own sig file.

 

[daveshel]

Thank you for a post that is comprised of analysis. You make some good points. But I feel it is simple:

1. Abortion is wrong.
2. Abortion is none of my business.
3. Abortion is none of the government's business.
4. Abortion is not the most important issue in this election: the PNAC agenda is.

 

[Todd33]

I'll buy the fact that Christians give a sh!t about fetuses when they start to care about already born children, I call the "people". When they stop bombing civilians and stop putting people to death. When "Thal shalt not kill" is applied to everyone and not just a fetus for political reasons, then I'll believe your type. Till then, it's a wedge issue used to get simple minded folks to the booths so they can implement their war mongering and treasury robbing.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: lordtyranus

Originally posted by: steeplerot

Newsflash: It's not for you to decide what is and is not an issue.

So then why are you trolls telling steeplerot she's off-topic?

She made a good point. The same people who are concerned about fetuses life often support sending fully developped people to their death. It's inconsistent.

When does someone deserve rights? It's a sliding scale. It depends on what stage of life there at.

 

[cmp1223]

CycloWizard, i'm too tired to lay out a complete arguement now, but let me start by saying that you might be mixing political and theologicl issues here. I'm also not exactly sure what you are trying to do here. Are you trying to define who should have rights based on our Constitution or based on some sort of religious or moral basis? As far as the law goes, remember that many americans believed that no bill of rights was necessary when ratifying the Constituion. The Constitution is a guide for a demacratic society, and was not dictated to define the rights of man. As far as "everyone is equall under the law," this only applies to people who are governed by the law, not cats dogs, or aliens.

I also think you are mixing up the idea od "rights" because you speak of granting rights. I assume you mean the government grants rights, and the government itself is an extension of the people. Do you mean the rights under the law? As in i dont have the right to kill someone because it is illegal? I believe that under our government, full rights are given to those who are subject to the laws, anyone within the border. And i guess with fetuses, many would argue they are not people and not under the influence of equall rights. But is a fetus less of a person than a baby born with only a brain stem to keep it "alive," but with no hope of higher brain function, basically a mass of organs, does "that" deserve rights?

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: daveshel
Thank you for a post that is comprised of analysis. You make some good points. But I feel it is simple:

1. Abortion is wrong.
2. Abortion is none of my business.
3. Abortion is none of the government's business.
4. Abortion is not the most important issue in this election: the PNAC agenda is.

1. Murder is wrong.
2. Murder is none of my business.
3. Murder is none of the government's business.
4. Murder is not the most important issue in this election: the PNAC agenda is.

Originally posted by: Todd33
I'll buy the fact that Christians give a sh!t about fetuses when they start to care about already born children, I call the "people". When they stop bombing civilians and stop putting people to death. When "Thal shalt not kill" is applied to everyone and not just a fetus for political reasons, then I'll believe your type. Till then, it's a wedge issue used to get simple minded folks to the booths so they can implement their war mongering and treasury robbing.

So are you arguing that killing is always justified, or that it is never justified? Or are you just being bigoted?

Originally posted by: cmp1223
CycloWizard, i'm too tired to lay out a complete arguement now, but let me start by saying that you might be mixing political and theologicl issues here. I'm also not exactly sure what you are trying to do here. Are you trying to define who should have rights based on our Constitution or based on some sort of religious or moral basis? As far as the law goes, remember that many americans believed that no bill of rights was necessary when ratifying the Constituion. The Constitution is a guide for a demacratic society, and was not dictated to define the rights of man. As far as "everyone is equall under the law," this only applies to people who are governed by the law, not cats dogs, or aliens.

Nothing I said has any theological meaning at all. I'm trying to define who should be attributed rights based on logic rather than hand-waving. It has long been demonstrated that the direct wording of the Constitution does not apply for the distribution of rights. Else, only men would have rights to life, liberty, and property, et cetera, which is obviously no longer the case. Further, the current definition, as defined in the Roe v. Wade decision, takes an amendment (14th) ver batim when it is terribly obvious that this is not how the amendment was intended. Rehnquist knew this when he said "To reach its result, the Court necessarily has had to find within the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment a right that was apparently completely unknown to the drafters of the Amendment." So, the Constitution does not contain a method for the distribution of rights.

I also think you are mixing up the idea od "rights" because you speak of granting rights. I assume you mean the government grants rights, and the government itself is an extension of the people. Do you mean the rights under the law? As in i dont have the right to kill someone because it is illegal? I believe that under our government, full rights are given to those who are subject to the laws, anyone within the border. And i guess with fetuses, many would argue they are not people and not under the influence of equall rights. But is a fetus less of a person than a baby born with only a brain stem to keep it "alive," but with no hope of higher brain function, basically a mass of organs, does "that" deserve rights?

I believe that rights exist, but the government is currently allowing the infringement of those rights due to an activist interpretation of one single sentence written into an amendment that was taken completely out of context. Further, fetuses are assigned some rights, so if what you say is true (full rights are given to those who are subject to the laws), then they must be assigned full rights. Your last point is a good one and I'll have to think about it some more before I can give you a meaningful answer.

 

[3chordcharlie]

This is the best OP I've seen by CycloWizard so far - it gets at the root of a pretty complex question.

I don't claim to have an answer for it, and even if I do, I certainly can't expect to convince anyone of my position, but it's a good question none-the-less.

@ spread your legs-boy

This is the worst post I've seen in the last few weeks, at any rate, though I admit I haven't read all of them. Get a fvckin' clue about sex and pregnancy (pun definitely intended).

 

[daveshel]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: daveshel
Thank you for a post that is comprised of analysis. You make some good points. But I feel it is simple:

1. Abortion is wrong.
2. Abortion is none of my business.
3. Abortion is none of the government's business.
4. Abortion is not the most important issue in this election: the PNAC agenda is.

1. Murder is wrong.
2. Murder is none of my business.
3. Murder is none of the government's business.
4. Murder is not the most important issue in this election: the PNAC agenda is.

Then you agree on this point?

 

[cwjerome]

Great topic, hope to chime in tomorrow...

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: daveshel
Then you agree on this point?

No, I merely copy and pasted your post and replaced the word abortion with murder to demonstrate how ridiculous this stance really is.

 

[Kibbo]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

I guess where our primary difference lies is that I believe when a mother acted to have sex, she voided any say in how the consequences worked themselves out. If I give a gun to someone knowing that they may use it to kill someone, I'm still at least partially responsible, just as the bartender is who keeps refilling the drunk's mug and then sends him driving home. If you engage in the action, you must be prepared to accept the consequences, whether they appeal to you or not. As you say, mine is certainly a work in progress, so any intelligent discussion (thanks MB and Kibbo) is more than welcome.

Here's an interesting conclusion using your own argument:

First, I am assuming that you believe that reproductive responsibilities are equally shared between the couple. If you disagree with that, I will have to flame you mercilessly.

Imagine a technology is developped where a zygote or a foetus can be transferred reasonably safely from one body to another. Assume that there is another technology that allows for synthetic "wombs" to be implanted into men, which have the capability to carry foetuses to term. Assume these technologies are compatible, and that the risks when compared to childbirth are negligible.

Imagine a situation where a pregnant mother is decapitated, but the foetus could still make it, with emergency application of these technologies. By your logic, the father of that child could be forced to carry his child to term. He is as responsible for that child's creation, so he should be equally responsible for that child's survival, even if it violates his right to determine what he does with his body.

Yay, Big Brother, who wants forced surgery?

 

[judasmachine]

Originally posted by: jtusa4

Originally posted by: steeplerot
Sorry to burst your bubbleboy, this post IS a troll, you are no woman so get out of their uterus. Who are you to judge a woman's decison, these wedge issues are blatent desperation and noone is impressed
but others who share the same view. You are a hypocrite and are doing this country a disservice. Don't like abortion, don't have one, but that is a non-issue since you are male.
Find a real issue. this issue is pointless trollbaiting and never has gotten anyone anywhere.

I think women should keep their legs closed as opposed to slaughtering kids they "don't feel like having."

Yeah since guys have nothing to do with that either. Always blaming the woman.

:roll:

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Kibbo

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

I guess where our primary difference lies is that I believe when a mother acted to have sex, she voided any say in how the consequences worked themselves out. If I give a gun to someone knowing that they may use it to kill someone, I'm still at least partially responsible, just as the bartender is who keeps refilling the drunk's mug and then sends him driving home. If you engage in the action, you must be prepared to accept the consequences, whether they appeal to you or not. As you say, mine is certainly a work in progress, so any intelligent discussion (thanks MB and Kibbo) is more than welcome.

Here's an interesting conclusion using your own argument:

First, I am assuming that you believe that reproductive responsibilities are equally shared between the couple. If you disagree with that, I will have to flame you mercilessly.

Imagine a technology is developped where a zygote or a foetus can be transferred reasonably safely from one body to another. Assume that there is another technology that allows for synthetic "wombs" to be implanted into men, which have the capability to carry foetuses to term. Assume these technologies are compatible, and that the risks when compared to childbirth are negligible.

Imagine a situation where a pregnant mother is decapitated, but the foetus could still make it, with emergency application of these technologies. By your logic, the father of that child could be forced to carry his child to term. He is as responsible for that child's creation, so he should be equally responsible for that child's survival, even if it violates his right to determine what he does with his body.

Yay, Big Brother, who wants forced surgery?

If such technology existed, I would support it. Though I have no cause not to, as it's impossible for all intents and purposes (lacking a uterus and such is not the only reason we can't ), so I have no reason to say no even if I didn't really believe this. Just trying to be honest, though I really would support it.

I think this brings up another interesting point. If such a law existed, it would redefine the sexual relationship and we might be looking at this from different angles. Maybe developing such technology and having such a law would deter guys away from their sex-crazed lifestyles. I doubt it would too much, but hey, we're dealing with the hypothetical, so let's go nuts!

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: lordtyranus

Originally posted by: steeplerot
Sorry this post IS a troll, you are no woman so get out of their uterus. Who are you to judge a woman's decison, these wedge issues are blatent desperation and noone is impressed
but others who share the same view. You are a hypocrite and are doing this country a disservice. Don't like abortion, don't have one, but that is a non-issue since you are male.
Find a real issue. this issue is pointless trollbaiting and never has gotten anyone anywhere.

Newsflash: It's not for you to decide what is and is not an issue.

Newsflash: It is not for you to decide what is and is not an issue either.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: umbrella39
Newsflash: It is not for you to decide what is and is not an issue either.

Sorry umbrella, but that's hardly a newsflash. That post was made probably a week ago. Who do you work for, CBS?

 

[Kibbo]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

If such technology existed, I would support it. Though I have no cause not to, as it's impossible for all intents and purposes (lacking a uterus and such is not the only reason we can't ), so I have no reason to say no even if I didn't really believe this. Just trying to be honest, though I really would support it.

I think this brings up another interesting point. If such a law existed, it would redefine the sexual relationship and we might be looking at this from different angles. Maybe developing such technology and having such a law would deter guys away from their sex-crazed lifestyles. I doubt it would too much, but hey, we're dealing with the hypothetical, so let's go nuts!

Ok, you would support the forced use of this technology on an unwilling man?

. . . Wow, I completely disagree with you. But I respect your intellectual honesty.

Hmm. . . could this logic be used to legally force a man to donate a (non-neccessary) part of his liver in order to save his child's life? What about his unborn child's life?

Would you force any parent to undergo any surgery if it would save the life of his child? Till what age? 18?

Just 'cause he got some?

And yeah, I was thinking some kind of umbilical system, a harness to help him support the weight, a synthetic placental wall which kept the child's hormornal cocktail (mostly, still want him to have mood swings etc. . ) separate from the subject's. I dunno, is there anything else?

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: umbrella39
Newsflash: It is not for you to decide what is and is not an issue either.

Sorry umbrella, but that's hardly a newsflash. That post was made probably a week ago. Who do you work for, CBS?

Hardly relevant. Just stating the facts. I usually pass up these pseudo search for truth and meaning posts. Everyone is different and that is the blessing I am happy that God bestowed upon us all. I am really not concerned with anyone else interpretations of when life begins, whom should be protected, or what separates us from animals.

Edit: I should state that the reason I don't bother to read theseis that IMO they belong in OT and not P&N as I find the OP neither news nor politics.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Kibbo
Ok, you would support the forced use of this technology on an unwilling man?

. . . Wow, I completely disagree with you. But I respect your intellectual honesty.

Hmm. . . could this logic be used to legally force a man to donate a (non-neccessary) part of his liver in order to save his child's life? What about his unborn child's life?

Would you force any parent to undergo any surgery if it would save the life of his child? Till what age? 18?

Just 'cause he got some?

And yeah, I was thinking some kind of umbilical system, a harness to help him support the weight, a synthetic placental wall which kept the child's hormornal cocktail (mostly, still want him to have mood swings etc. . ) separate from the subject's. I dunno, is there anything else?

I think the most likely thing that will come in the not-too-distant future is an artificial womb that is independent of a body. But with respect to your previous statement, I have to say that the reason I believe in this so strongly is because 'if' this technology existed, then the man would know full well going in that he would bear equal responsibility for raising the child. Thus, if he still chose to engage in sexual activities, he could be forced to bear the consequences of his actions. You break it, you buy it.

I guess the logic could be extended to forcing parents to donate organs to an ailing child. I don't think you would have much problem passing such a law if parents were always 'matches' for their kids with respect to transplants. I would hope that any parent who could would volunteer for this action.

 

[ericlp]

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: lordtyranus

Originally posted by: steeplerot
Sorry this post IS a troll, you are no woman so get out of their uterus. Who are you to judge a woman's decison, these wedge issues are blatent desperation and noone is impressed
but others who share the same view. You are a hypocrite and are doing this country a disservice. Don't like abortion, don't have one, but that is a non-issue since you are male.
Find a real issue. this issue is pointless trollbaiting and never has gotten anyone anywhere.

Newsflash: It's not for you to decide what is and is not an issue.

Newsflash: It is not for you to decide what is and is not an issue either.

NewsFlash to all you phreaks.

Last time I checked Abortions are legal. So go ahead have as many as you like. Who cares? I don't, so why don't you all just deal with it since it's not going to change anyway? If "YOU" don't like what?s going on in our GREAT nation then maybe you should leave?

 

[Kibbo]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

I think the most likely thing that will come in the not-too-distant future is an artificial womb that is independent of a body. But with respect to your previous statement, I have to say that the reason I believe in this so strongly is because 'if' this technology existed, then the man would know full well going in that he would bear equal responsibility for raising the child. Thus, if he still chose to engage in sexual activities, he could be forced to bear the consequences of his actions. You break it, you buy it.

I guess the logic could be extended to forcing parents to donate organs to an ailing child. I don't think you would have much problem passing such a law if parents were always 'matches' for their kids with respect to transplants. I would hope that any parent who could would volunteer for this action.

Hmmm. . . again, I appreciate your consistency.

I just know that I would leave the frickin country if the government forced me to go under the knife.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: ericlp
NewsFlash to all you phreaks.

Last time I checked Abortions are legal. So go ahead have as many as you like. Who cares? I don't, so why don't you all just deal with it since it's not going to change anyway? If "YOU" don't like what?s going on in our GREAT nation then maybe you should leave?

Everyone who disagrees with me is a 'phreak', yada yada yada, abortions are legal so why discuss anything about them, yada yada yada, it's not going to change anything, so if you don't like it, leave the country.

Well, I'm glad that YOU don't see any problem with it. Obviously, everyone else needs to adjust their views to come into alignment with yours. I should have included that in my analysis, but somehow I missed it.

You could save yourself time and just say "I believe it's this way so everyone else must be wrong because it's legal so ha!"