Is "When Does Life Begin?" a Scientific or Moral Question? Both?

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Dan McClellan said:

So if a woman consents to have sex without a condemn, she is consenting to have a man ejaculate inside her, no matter what she says or does to prevent it? That's really your contention?

I am not sure what you are saying here. Would it not be implied if a man asks a woman if it is okay not to use a condom and she agrees, they are both talking about intercourse?  If she consents, then why would she try to prevent it? (Unless she changes her mind, but then she isn’t consenting)

I feel I am missing some crucial aspect in your argument possibly because we are making different assumptions about how conversations about sex between participants are interpreted.

Edited July 18, 2019 by Calm

[pogi]

3 hours ago, Dan McClellan said:

So if a woman consents to have sex without a condemn, she is consenting to have a man ejaculate inside her, no matter what she says or does to prevent it? That's really your contention?

Are you suggesting that the “overwhelming” number of unwanted pregnancies happen because men deceive women into believing that they will use the pull-out method but don’t?  As smac97 stated - force, coercion, or deceit...is that your contention? Are you also suggesting that it is the man’s fault that they don’t use an over the counter emergency contraceptive?

1-in-5 people who use the pull-out method get pregnant every year (planned parenthood) by the way.

Do you really not believe that women can be just as sexually reckless as men?  Do women never use questionable judgment?  Let me guess, all STDs are the man’s fault too because women are always clear minded when they are sexually aroused and would never take any risks.

Edited July 18, 2019 by pogi

[Hamba Tuhan]

2 hours ago, Dan McClellan said:

The underlying cognitive architecture is trans-historical and trans-cultural, even if the socio-material manifestation of its influence is more historically contingent and situationally emergent.

I'm assuming you're aware that this is a highly contestable position to take ... and one that comes with its own ideological baggage and intellectual genealogy.

[smac97]

10 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

The legal debate is largely about the constitution and questions of privacy and autonomy.

Yes, but I am suggesting that the question of personhood deserves equal attention and treatment (perhaps even more than the above questions).

Quote

While personhood doesn’t enter into the legal debate maybe it should.

Actually, personhood is already part of the legal debate.  

Quote

We should also note that the legal debate is informed by the legislative debate which can be shaped by items not yet part of the legal debate. After all the legislature shaped legality.

Subject to the Constitution, yes.  

Quote

I think for Mormons personhood is essential and ought affect how we view the legal issues. Much as for Catholics and many Evangelicals the idea that the soul is created at conception shapes their view.

My views on this issue are influenced by, but not essentially based on, the theological debate about when the spirit enters the body.

Quote

The slavery issue isn’t a good analogy since Africans were obviously thinking persons.

That's interesting.  For me, the slavery issue is a good analogy since Africans were obviously persons.  And yet our society denied them that status under the law, which allowed them to be held as slaves.  That was wrong.

Hence the discussion about when a baby in utero attains personhood.

Quote

Ethically it was impossible to justify the horrific actions people took which was why so often people particularly in the south attempted to justify it scripturally instead.

Hence the usefulness of the analogy.  In my view, elective abortion is also ethically impossible to justify, which is why so many people ignore or reject the humanity and the life of the baby.

Quote

With first trimester abortion things are far different since there is no great similarity to adult persons.

There isn't?  What are the differences?  And why are those differences material?

And why must the similarity be between a first trimester fetus and an adult person?  What if we compare a first trimester fetus to a one-day-old child?  The latter has attained personhood (and hence protections under the law), but the former has not.  Why?  What is/are the material difference(s)?

Quote

Again that doesn’t mean it is right. But it means it different reasoning.

What are the differences in reasoning that you propose?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 18, 2019 by smac97

[Ryan Dahle]

49 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Quote

With first trimester abortion things are far different since there is no great similarity to adult persons.

There isn't?  What are the differences?  And why are those differences material?

And why must the similarity be between a first trimester fetus and an adult person?  What if we compare a first trimester fetus to a one-day-old child?  The latter has attained personhood (and hence protections under the law), but the former has not.  Why?  What is/are the material difference(s)?

I think this question is at the heart of the debate. Why specifically do people almost universally feel it is immoral to take the life of a newborn baby and (for many people) the life of a viable baby, but far fewer people are concerned about taking the life of non-viable babies? 

It seems that the essential reason for not taking the life of newborns or viable babies in utero has to do with what the developing child is as well what it has the potential to be.

A child born with a severe mental disability or health problem and who is almost certain not to live more than a few years is still almost universally valued as a person (in modern Western society, at least), despite the child's near-zero potential to develop into a fully functioning adult. One can go down the pain route, but if there were a condition that caused a newborn (or an adult, for that matter) to not feel pain, we still wouldn't feel it moral to kill it for convenience. Thus arguing that it is moral to kill a zygote because it can't feel pain seems illogical. We can go down the cognitive awareness route, but newborns have limited cognitive awareness, and we often preserve the life of adults who may be temporarily in comatose. One could argue that it is the combination of physical/cognitive dissimilarities between non-viable babies and functioning humans (newborn to adults) that categorizes the non-viable babies as non-persons, but if in each case those dissimilarities are found to be non-determinitive qualifiers of personhood in analogous situations, how does the combination of them suddenly disqualify the non-viable baby as being a person?

  

 

 

 

Edited July 18, 2019 by Ryan Dahle

[USU78]

52 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yes, but I am suggesting that the question of personhood deserves equal attention and treatment (perhaps even more than the above questions).

Actually, personhood is already part of the legal debate.  

Subject to the Constitution, yes.  

My views on this issue are influenced by, but not essentially based on, the theological debate about when the spirit enters the body.

That's interesting.  For me, the slavery issue is a good analogy since Africans were obviously persons.  And yet our society denied them that status under the law, which allowed them to be held as slaves.  That was wrong.

Hence the discussion about when a baby in utero attains personhood.

Hence the usefulness of the analogy.  In my view, elective abortion is also ethically impossible to justify, which is why so many people ignore or reject the humanity and the life of the baby.

There isn't?  What are the differences?  And why are those differences material?

And why must the similarity be between a first trimester fetus and an adult person?  What if we compare a first trimester fetus to a one-day-old child?  The latter has attained personhood (and hence protections under the law), but the former has not.  Why?  What is/are the material difference(s)?

What are the differences in reasoning that you propose?

Thanks,

-Smac

Tell him about "lives in being."

[smac97]

25 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Tell him about "lives in being."

Oi.  The Rule Against Perpetuities.  Hours and hours spent in law school trying to sort out what it means and how it is applied, only for it to therafter never be seen again in fifteen years of practice.

Here's the gist (and please correct me if I am wrong):

The "Rule Against Perpetuities" is

Quote

a legal rule in the Anglo-American common law that prevents people from using legal instruments (usually a deed or a will) to exert control over the ownership of property for a time long beyond the lives of people living at the time the instrument was written. Specifically, the rule forbids a person from creating future interests (traditionally contingent remainders and executory interests) in property that would vest beyond 21 years after the lifetimes of those living at the time of creation of the interest. In essence, the rule prevents a person from putting qualifications and criteria in a deed or a will that would continue to affect the ownership of property long after he or she has died, a concept often referred to as control by the "dead hand" or "mortmain".

A key issue, then, is figuring out the "lifetimes of those living at the time of the creation of the interest."  Hence we get this:

Quote

"{A} child en ventre sa mere" (in utero) was regarded by common law as "in being," or "as born" when ensuring that wills and trusts do not run afoul of the rule against perpetuities; nine (or sometimes ten) months of gestation were allotted for this purpose.

...

In its 1885 decision McArthur v. Scott, the US Supreme Court affirmed the common law principle that a child in its mother's womb can be regarded as "in being" for the purpose of resolving a dispute about wills and trusts.

In other words, babies in utero are recognized as "persons" as pertaining to the Rule Against Perpetuities.

More here (same link as above):

Quote

In 2004, President George W. Bush signed the Unborn Victims of Violence Act into law.^[54] The law effectively extends personhood status^[55] to a "child in utero at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb"^[56] if they are targeted, injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed violent crimes. The law also prohibits the prosecutions of "any person for conduct relating" to a legally consented to abortion.

Today, 38 U.S. States legally recognize a human fetus or "unborn child" as a crime victim, at least for the purpose of homicide or feticide laws.^[57] According to progressive media watchdog Media Matters for America, "Further, a prenatal personhood measure might subject a woman who suffers a pregnancy-related complication or a miscarriage to criminal investigations and possibly jail time for homicide, manslaughter or reckless endangerment. And because so many laws use the terms "persons" or "people," a prenatal personhood measure could affect large numbers of a state's laws, changing the application of thousands of laws and resulting in unforeseeable, unintended, and absurd consequences." ^[58]

In the United States, the 1992 United States Supreme Court case of Planned Parenthood v. Casey held that a law cannot place legal restrictions imposing an undue burden for "the purpose or effect of placing a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion of a nonviable fetus."^[59] This standard was also upheld in the Supreme Court case of Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt (2016) in which several Texas restrictions were struck down.^[60]

Footnote 55 above links to an article that discusses in some detail the impact of the UVVA statute on the abortion debate.  It's an interesting article (though long).

Anyway, babies in utero are also granted "personhood" for the purposes of this statute. 

The entire Wikipedia article linked to aboveis worth a read: Beginning of human personhood.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 18, 2019 by smac97

[USU78]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

Oi.  The Rule Against Perpetuities.  Hours and hours spent in law school trying to sort out what it means and how it is applied, only for it to therafter never be seen again in fifteen years of practice.

Here's the gist (and please correct me if I am wrong):

The "Rule Against Perpetuities" is

A key issue, then, is figuring out the "lifetimes of those living at the time of the creation of the interest."  Hence we get this:

In other words, babies in utero are recognized as "persons" as pertaining to the Rule Against Perpetuities.

More here (same link as above):

Footnote 55 above links to an article that discusses in some detail the impact of the UVVA statute on the abortion debate.  It's an interesting article (though long).

Anyway, babies in utero are also granted "personhood" for the purposes of this statute. 

The entire Wikipedia article linked to aboveis worth a read: Beginning of human personhood.

Thanks,

-Smac

The Rule Against Perpetuities arose to stop aristocrats from controlling land from the grave ... so the sovereign could properly tax it at proper intervals. Babies in utero had to be accounted for, including babies fathered by "fertile octogenarians."

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, USU78 said:

The Rule Against Perpetuities arose to stop aristocrats from controlling land from the grave ... so the sovereign could properly tax it at proper intervals. Babies in utero had to be accounted for, including babies fathered by "fertile octogenarians."

Does it have any practical application these days?

[USU78]

Just now, smac97 said:

Does it have any practical application these days?

It comprised a great plot point in the steamy movie, Body Heat. The femme fatale knew the stupid lawyer didn't understand the rule, got him to put one into her rich husband's estate plan, and ended up with all the goodies after the stupid lawyer, her lover, murdered her rich husband when the court invalidated the offending provision.

But never in the real world.

[Rivers]

This is an issue in which I have some holy envy for the Catholics.  For them a life is a life as soon as sperm meets egg.  Intentionally killing it is bad even in cases of rape and incest no matter how early in development.   I used to think that this was an absurdly extreme stance but now I have a lot of respect for such and intense and unfaltering reverence for human life.  They make us look like cold-blooded killers with our more nuanced stance on abortion.  

As to the OP's question, it is clearly a moral and philosophical issue.  Everybody who's been taught the birds and the bees knows that sperm + egg =baby.  The big disagreement is whether the mother or the government has jurisdiction over the unborn baby.

Edited July 19, 2019 by Rivers

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Rivers said:

They make us look like cold-blooded killers with our more nuanced stance on abortion.  

Cold blooded murderers kill without regard to life. The Church allows for taking into account the impact of pregnancy on the life of the mother out of concern for the mother and her loved ones. Perhaps in some people’s view that regard for the mother’s quality of life is not the most moral interpretation of respect for life, but to suggest that misplaced compassion is comparable to cold blooded killing is unrealistic and damaging to persuading people to consider your view as something other than emotion, imo. 

[Dan McClellan]

On 7/18/2019 at 5:35 AM, Calm said:

I am not sure what you are saying here. Would it not be implied if a man asks a woman if it is okay not to use a condom and she agrees, they are both talking about intercourse?  If she consents, then why would she try to prevent it? (Unless she changes her mind, but then she isn’t consenting)

I feel I am missing some crucial aspect in your argument possibly because we are making different assumptions about how conversations about sex between participants are interpreted.

Intercourse and internal ejaculation are not coterminous. Any one of a number of dynamics could lead to the expectation that the man will withdraw, will seek input, or at least let the woman know when things are imminent, whether previous habit, explicit instruction, or other circumstances. 

[Dan McClellan]

23 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I'm assuming you're aware that this is a highly contestable position to take ... and one that comes with its own ideological baggage and intellectual genealogy.

Two chapters of my doctoral dissertation treat the question directly, so yeah. 

[Dan McClellan]

23 hours ago, pogi said:

Are you suggesting that the “overwhelming” number of unwanted pregnancies happen because men deceive women into believing that they will use the pull-out method but don’t?  As smac97 stated - force, coercion, or deceit...is that your contention? Are you also suggesting that it is the man’s fault that they don’t use an over the counter emergency contraceptive?

1-in-5 people who use the pull-out method get pregnant every year (planned parenthood) by the way.

Do you really not believe that women can be just as sexually reckless as men?  Do women never use questionable judgment?  Let me guess, all STDs are the man’s fault too because women are always clear minded when they are sexually aroused and would never take any risks.

I'd appreciate an answer to my question.

[Calm]

52 minutes ago, Dan McClellan said:

Intercourse and internal ejaculation are not coterminous. Any one of a number of dynamics could lead to the expectation that the man will withdraw, will seek input, or at least let the woman know when things are imminent, whether previous habit, explicit instruction, or other circumstances. 

Intercourse should be synonymous with possible pregnancy in participants’ minds though. Withdrawal is not a way to prevent pregnancy as semen is often released even without ejaculation.  Plus you don’t even need actual intercourse to risk pregnancy as it is even possible, though not probable for semen to leak through clothing and enter the vagina.  So internal ejaculation is not the only way to get pregnant through natural means.  If a man and woman are depending on withdrawal to prevent pregnancy, they are foolish imo or hopefully aren’t that opposed to becoming pregnant.

A woman who consents to intercourse without a condom (assuming this is what you mean by sex without a condom, but if not please clarify) is consenting to having semen released internally. That is just a biological reality. Semen is not just released with ejaculation.

Quote

For every 100 people who use the pull out method perfectly, 4 will get pregnant. But pulling out can be difficult to do perfectly. So in real life, about 22 out of 100 people who use withdrawal get pregnant every year — that's about 1 in 5.

https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/birth-control/withdrawal-pull-out-method/how-effective-is-withdrawal-method-pulling-out

Edited July 19, 2019 by Calm

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Dan McClellan said:

I'd appreciate an answer to my question.

I thought my answer was implicit. 

You said:

“So if a woman consents to have sex without a condemn, she is consenting to have a man ejaculate inside her, no matter what she says or does to prevent it? That's really your contention?”

My answer is obviously, no, the man could be deceptive if he so chooses. But the women is consenting to the inherent risk of pregnancy by using that method (or she is ignorant, which you can’t blame the man for).

Now, I’d appreciate a response to my last post. What seems to be implicit in your question is that you concede that you do believe that the “overwhelming majority” of unwanted births are the result of either force, coercion, and in this case deception by men.  Is that accurate?  If not, what are you getting at exactly?

You also never responded to my emergency contraceptive follow up that ties into your man power conspiracy...

Edited July 19, 2019 by pogi

[Dan McClellan]

50 minutes ago, pogi said:

I thought my answer was implicit. 

You said:

“So if a woman consents to have sex without a condemn, she is consenting to have a man ejaculate inside her, no matter what she says or does to prevent it? That's really your contention?”

My answer is obviously, no, the man could be deceptive if he so chooses. But the women is consenting to the implicit risk of pregnancy by using that method even if the man’s intentions are pure.

Consenting to a relatively low risk that is enormously increased based on the decisions of the man. In other words, the majority of the unwanted pregnancies are the product of the man's agency.

Quote

Now, I’d appreciate a response to my last post. What seems to be implicit in your question is that you concede that the “overwhelming majority” of unwanted births are the result of deception at the least.  Is that accurate?

These were your questions:

Quote

Are you suggesting that the “overwhelming” number of unwanted pregnancies happen because men deceive women into believing that they will use the pull-out method but don’t?  

Of course not. Like I said, a number of different circumstances could lead to it, like overestimating the time a man has left or just being inept. The Planned Parenthood stat you shared represents the "real world" outcomes, while they state in the same study that if the man does it right, the stats drop to about 4 out of 100. 

Quote

As smac97 stated - force, coercion, or deceit...is that your contention? 

Of course not, as I have repeatedly stated. This is just a strawman. If you can twist my argument into just being that men are evil, it's easier to dismiss me as being dogmatic. That's not been my argument in any sense whatsoever and never has been, so please stop trying to put those words in my mouth. 

Quote

Are you also suggesting that it is the man’s fault that they don’t use an over the counter emergency contraceptive?

It certainly can be, but not necessarily. There are plenty of situations where, for instance, the woman thought the man had put on a condom, and he had not (for whatever reason), and interpreted her failure to raise an objection as tacit consent. There are just so many different circumstances that can contribute to this, but overwhelmingly, the agency of the man is proximate and determinative.

Quote

1-in-5 people who use the pull-out method get pregnant every year (planned parenthood) by the way.

Like I said, 4 out of 100 if the man does it right. 

Quote

 

Do you really not believe that women can be just as sexually reckless as men?  

 

Women are more conscious of and concerned about conception when it is not wanted than are men, so no, they do not act recklessly in ways that can lead to conception to the same degree that men do.

Quote

Do women never use questionable judgment?

Let me guess, all STDs are the man’s fault too because women are always clear minded when they are sexually aroused and would never take any risks.

What juvenile rhetorical questions.

 

[Amulek]

16 minutes ago, Dan McClellan said:

Intercourse and internal ejaculation are not coterminous. 

This very much reminds me of that joke about the mathematicians and the physicists - you know, the one were they are lined up in the gym on one side and a group of cheerleaders are lined up on the opposite side; the men are then told they can kiss the girl on the other side of the room, but only if they traverse the court by going half the distance each time. The mathematicians stand still and just glare at the instructor while the physicists all take off running. When asked about their respective behaviors, the mathematicians respond that the task was pointless because it is mathematically impossible to achieve - there will always be some finite amount of space between them. The physicists then reply, well sure, but we'll be close enough for all practical purposes.  

 

Quote

Any one of a number of dynamics could lead to the expectation that the man will withdraw, will seek input, or at least let the woman know when things are imminent, whether previous habit, explicit instruction, or other circumstances. 

The most prevalent risks associated with having unprotected sex are pregnancy and STD transmission. If you have unprotected sex then you are assuming those risks, regardless of whether or not you 'consent' to them taking place. Your willful participation in the activity is your consent. 

I mean, if a woman lies about being on birth control (not unheard of), the man who gets her pregnant doesn't get to turn around and then sue her for rape because he never consented to having sex with an ovulating woman. 

 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Dan McClellan said:

The Planned Parenthood stat you shared represents the "real world" outcomes, while they state in the same study that if the man does it right,

They say “perfectly” which implies something besides trying to do it to the best of his ability, imo (especially with younger men who apparently are more likely to release semen earlier).

From the way they phrase it, it is not intent that determines how effective the method is.  It is not unpleasant and thus men get it wrong, but difficult to do effectively according to them.

”But pulling out can be difficult to do perfectly. So in real life, about 22 out of 100 people who use withdrawal get pregnant every year — that’s about 1 in 5.”

Quote

There are plenty of situations where, for instance, the woman thought the man had put on a condom, and he had not (for whatever reason), and interpreted her failure to raise an objection as tacit consent

Isn’t it a woman’s agency to pay attention close enough to check if a man has put on a condom or not? (Outside of deception where he might remove it last second)?

Edited July 19, 2019 by Calm

[pogi]

4 hours ago, Dan McClellan said:

Consenting to a relatively low risk that is enormously increased based on the decisions of the man. In other words, the majority of the unwanted pregnancies are the product of the man's agency.

Are you suggesting that even if the man’s intentions are to use the technique perfectly, any unintentional mishap is a product of his agency “over and against the agency of women”?

Does the woman assume no accountability in accepting the real world risk of the pull out method (1 in 5).  Sure, with perfect technique the risk is lower, but a woman must acknowledge and accept the real world risk that technique is more often than not, imperfect.

The method is so ineffective in the real world, that to use it as the sole method of contraception is reckless use of agency on both the man’s and the woman’s part. 

 

Edited July 19, 2019 by pogi

[pogi]

On 7/17/2019 at 4:15 PM, Dan McClellan said:

What I'm arguing is that unwanted pregnancies are overwhelmingly the product of the agency of men, and usually over and against the agency of women. 

This just is not true based on research.

First, “half of all pregnancies in the US are unplanned.”

Of those unplanned pregnancies, half are the result of not using ANY form of birth control (yes, the pull-out method is a form of birth control, albeit less effective).  Again, unless you are suggesting that the majority of these cases are the result of force, coercion, or deception (which you strongly deny), then women are equally responsible for around half of all cases.

The other half are the result of failures of birth control (no one’s fault, but is inherent risk that both men and women assume in having sex) or imperfect use (on both the part of the man (condom use, etc) and woman (the pill, etc.).  The pill is used far more than the condom.

Can you show me any research that supports your claim?

Here are my sources:

http://shriverreport.org/why-are-50-percent-of-pregnancies-in-the-us-unplanned-adrienne-d-bonham/

https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/unintended-pregnancy-united-states

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=103211630u

 

Edited July 19, 2019 by pogi

[pogi]

4 hours ago, Dan McClellan said:

What juvenile rhetorical questions.

I don’t think so.  What I was getting at is that If women are willing to take sexual risks as serious and potentially devastating as some STDs (clearly that is the case as many are infected through consensual unprotected sex), then why do you assume they are not likely to take risks with pregnancy? I think women can be more sexually risky, impulsive, and reckless than you imply.

Edited July 19, 2019 by pogi

[USU78]

Back to the Rule Against Perpetuities.

If a child not even yet conceived has what we in the evil legal profession call "inchoate" rights to real property that must be accounted for in the event (a) a child is conceived and (b) brought to term within (c) 9-10 months of the death of a person belonging to a certain class of descendant of the testator/-trix, then (d) the Law ought to answer directly and without equivocation why, if a child not even yet conceived must have his/her rights to real property preserved in a certain and very concrete way, must that child's right to life (a much more personal and profound right than mere real estate ownership) be ignored by our constitutional jurisprudence?

Edited July 19, 2019 by USU78

[Rivers]

9 hours ago, Calm said:

Cold blooded murderers kill without regard to life. The Church allows for taking into account the impact of pregnancy on the life of the mother out of concern for the mother and her loved ones. Perhaps in some people’s view that regard for the mother’s quality of life is not the most moral interpretation of respect for life, but to suggest that misplaced compassion is comparable to cold blooded killing is unrealistic and damaging to persuading people to consider your view as something other than emotion, imo. 

I was using hyperbole in comparing us to the Catholics.  I don’t actually think we’re cold blooded killers.