The value of a human life (and why abortion, economics, pulling the plug and triage)

[Autumnlicious]

First off, with respect to EvidenceVsFaith and Saerules on the beginning statement of the current quote post (see the hidden part below), the clear intent of the phrase "Well - once it is no longer a foetus I would think it would be ethically wrong to end the newly born baby's life for the same reason(s) as it would be to end mine" is to show that from the perspective of another affecting the one, in this case EvF or the newborn, it is unethical and immoral to destroy the one's life without their consent if they bear the capacity, potentiality or have a third party with the same faculties acting in their place as guardian to act as the means of granting consent.

When an organism is incapable of making present decisions by virtue not of body but of mind or lack thereof, it falls to the legal guardian to make the decision. This is a well established area in law and is commonly accepted. In matter of a developing fetus, during the early to mid stages of growth there is insufficient brain mass, folding and electrical activity to sustain the potential for that individual to grow into a functioning adult. This area of philosophy, if you are curious, is often called the potentiality argument. Often it is used to argue against abortion, however I am using it to show that a developing fetus during much of its development is fundamentally a nonperson. If it were to be removed or birthed during those times and it's body was kept functionally alive, it would never develop into a thinking individual. No exceptions. That is due to the complexity of biology involved.

To establish the clear illegality of destroying an infant without consent as another, one must recall that an infant has the clear potential, assuming all bodily needs are met, to develop into a thinking individual. However, as the concept of rights are a non entity to an infant, it falls to the parent(s) to act as the legal intermediary, much as one may act as a legal intermediary for an unconscious or comatose individual. Please note that potentiality does not guarantee a mind will be developed, but it does guarantee a significant nonzero chance of that. Please note the usage of significant and non zero, as would fall under scientific and mathematical definitions. I must reiterate that the fetus at earlier stages has a fundamentally zero chance, by nature of limits and noting that an insignificant number close to zero is functionally zero, and therefore has no rights and no potentiality.

However, it does not end there. A parent, for example, may not willingly destroy their child, as one acting as a legal intermediary for an incapacitated individual may not simply pull a gun and shoot them. Only under extenuating circumstances may the right to end a life be granted, whether in best interests of the individual at hand (infant) or of a significant group of people. Killing an infant, say, to prevent many developed individuals from being killed by a bomb, is ethically permissable only as we note that there is potential for an infant to grow into an individual against the further stage developed group of individuals. However, as individuals age and die, the value judgement involved requires that one balance off the potential for a developed, thinking organism that has lived longer to live to the maximum age and continue developing as a thinking being with the potential of an infant to live and develop into a thinking organism. Therefore, one may make the value judgement of saving an infant over a group of terminally ill patients or elderly, as they are close to death and/or functionally stagnant for intellectual growth due to failing and aged biology.

This system of thought thoroughly discards emotion in favor of potential, where potential to develop into/further as a thinking being and the potential to live to the maximum age. This is due to the tied nature of aging (time) and the development of thought, or as we physicists say:

d(developingThought)
-----------------
d(time)

Wherever the rate is highest implies the highest value, the lowest, the lowest value. Therefore the most valuable are the developed beings with the best cognitive development. But consider this - this is an equivalency statement for only one (1) individual. An infant is less valuable than a child, a child less than a teen, a teen less than an adult, with an adult more valuable than the elderly. From the perspective of economics or the development of a thinking being, this is the most logical system to consider if a thinking being is considered absolutely valuable over nonthinking beings, in an equivalent comparison, and thinking beings increase and decrease in ability over time.

Equivalent comparison, to define, is matching a single individual or object from one category against a single individual or object of another. For cases with N individuals, it becomes between thinking beings:

Nd(developingThought)
-----------------
d(time)

However, d(developingThought)/dt can be correlated to real world value by analogy of economics, which accounts for the cheapness and expensieveness of human life throughout history, as a single being consumes an approximate amount of resources and produces an approximate value of work. When that is considered, it also makes sense that a single life has a real world resource value, and thus justifies the procedure of triage et al.

In addition, this system fully justifies the act of "pulling the plug" on comatose patients. Resource wars, however, are inherently wasteful through this system unless one belligerent can take control of a desired resource and begin monetizing it in such a way to offset the real world cost of human life, which is rather difficult as it takes time to monetize said resource and if an opponent can destabilize that operation long enough, the former will spend literal human resources at an unsustainable rate, further justifying this system as a simple, concise look at the laws or theorems that dictate the value of human life and anything connected to it.

The following is the exchange that set this off:

---

Well - once it is no longer a foetus I would think it would be ethically wrong to end the newly born baby's life for the same reason(s) as it would be to end mine. I would have thought it would be obvious.

Morality is subjective obviously.

What reasons would it be 'wrong' to end yours then?

It is not so obvious that I see it

I completely agree with the bold, and as such am against most (all?) laws in place because of 'morality'.

Not dependent? It needs the diaper change, the milk, the shelter, the time and money of a person that they might not have. Nothing magical ever happens... and although i think adoption or the like might be a better use of resources: killing the thing after it is born is not unethical.

(my bolding)

I just don't know how to debate with that. I would have thought it would be obvious to anyone that a newborn baby and a foetus are two different things...

I was debating about the closer a foetus gets to a baby - I thought that it would be obvious that it's unethical to kill a newborn baby that isn't even a foetus at all highly developed or otherwise.

It is not so obvious to me: they are quite similar, as "pro-lifers" and their ilk seem obliged to incessantly remind us

It's a newly born living breathing human being, not an object.

News flash: Newly born, living, breathing human beings are objects. As are you. As am I.

Is that supposed to degrade us somehow? 0.o

It has emotions. It's not an (unliving) object.

And that should matter why?

Were you aware that cows have emotions? So do dogs... so do horses... maybe even fishes do (Though even having recently killed them by the thousands, I cannot tell if they do). I've even been told by some people that plants have emotions, though I doubt this to be the case.

Another news flash: We eat cows... we eat dogs... we eat horses... we eat fishes... we eat plants. We even eat each other in some cultures.

Ps: to eat something... it is usually preferable that it be dead first. And for it to be dead in a reasonable amount of time for you to eat it... it usually will be killed before you eat it.

Yeah right, who cares about the baby(?!)

Do I value it? Almost certainly not.

How can you care about something you don't value?

Babies and foetuses are exactly the same thing after all(!) The only factor here is the burden to the parents(!)

Not exactly the same thing... but little enough different that I should think you silly for saying one is okay to kill and the other not so much because of some divine birthright of value that I do not believe exists.

Oh, and one of the most important factors here is the burden to the parents. If we did not have orphanages and what have you: it might well be the only factor.

How old does the baby have to get before you consider it unjust to kill it I wonder...

Depends on the baby. If you recall: I don't value things much by how old they are. As for justice... I do not think it is very reasonable or wise to waste your resources for 9 months wrecking your body and to not gain anything from it. I am unlikely to assign any care to any being except for that which I have assigned simply by acknowledging its existence... children not unincluded.

No cut off point? But if you not only treat late and early developed foetuses are the same - but you also see nothing ethically wrong about killing newborn babies. Then see this point that I made above:

"How old does the baby have to get before you consider it unjust to kill it I wonder..."

A year old? 2 years old? 3 years old? a teenager? An Adult? Ever?

Seems kind of mad to me.

Why would there be a cut off point? That just sounds stupid to me. I think I made my point clear ages ago how I feel about age lines: They suck, and some women go to things like Botox™ for 'fixing' them.

I treat the thing the same as if it were anything at all: a factor to observe, and possibly manipulate... or if deemed necessary: annihilate All of us do this with everything we observe and deem worthy of notation.

To reiterate once more... I see nothing ethically wrong with killing (in and of itself) in the first place. We kill for so very many reasons... and although I think it is often brutal, unnecessary, and dangerous (sometimes so that one might 'lock up' the killer)... I hardly see it as necessarily unethical.

Also... I told you I have no cut off point. It is an individually decided factor assigned to a specific being... also known as value. This position shouldn't be hard to grasp really...

Finally: I might be a little 'mad' (more likely just eccentric)... but that doesn't weaken my points any

I disagree with it being 'obviously wrong'. Nothing about pregnancy is harmless. It is not a fetus that killing would be immoral (unless the person values it, and you value it because of their value of it)

How do you come to that conclusion? The mother is obviously the priority but how do you judge that aborting a foetus is never harmful at all? How do you judge that it cannot feel pain at more developed stages? How is causing suffering to anything at all ever "harmless"?

Surely any living thing that can feel pain can be "harmed".

Erhem: I stated the bold above... and I'm going to note the core modifying words with an underline, because I'm special. Then simply add the middle portion to modify the context of what this 'nothing' is associated with... and you have a clear sentence about my stance on pregnancy! I come to the conclusion that all of pregnancy is harmful because it is demonstrably so ^_^

By the way... why does it matter that the little human fetus can feel pain? It's going to die anyway... and I notice that they don't seem to care so much about the pain that is felt by our food when it is being... ah... 'processed'. Silly speciests... pain is for everyone v_v

Also I disagree that pain is harmful. Pain is very good for you, and you are lucky to have it. Imagine all those times you would have hurt yourself without realizing it otherwise v_v

Nor necessarily a full grown adult. It is simply killing... nothing necessarily immoral about it

So only adult humans can experience suffering or truly be "harmed" according to you?

Actually... my position (if you would be so kind to recognize it when it is clearly stated by me, if you would now notice the bolds) is that killing an adult human is not necessarily immoral.

My point is that some laws are ethically based and not just about freedoms. You're not necessarily restricting freedoms or rights to any other member of society when you are cruel to animals, but it's still illegal - and for good reason in my mind.

Ethically based laws include anti-felacio laws, anti-single sex marriage laws, Shiara law, and other such. It is illegal because those other animals are a part of the society. It is just speciesist to think otherwise...

First I knew of it. I thought only humans were officially listed as "people", as members of society, by society.

Under some definitions perhaps. Of course... many animals are people. In any event, we are all a part of a community, and it would do us no favors to not recognize non-humans as being a part of our community. Indeed... we rather rely on other animals in our society for many tasks... from helping us hunt ducks to feeding us to seeing/hearing for the blind/deaf.

Because torture is unethical. If it didn't hurt them then it wouldn't (or shouldn't) count as "torture" and if it hurts them then it's unethical and cruel to go around hurting anything for no good reason - I thought that would be obvious.

How and why is torture unethical?

It isn't unethical... cruel I agree with, but not unethical. It isn't obvious to me... again. v_v

And I would think that these emotional arguments might be based off the fact that at least some people believe that (at least some other) animals can feel pain and so it's wrong to torture them.

I don't think it is wrong to torture things because they feel pain... i mean seriously: isn't that the point of torture? v_v Emotional arguments are based off of whatever little thing will cause emotions to flood a mob and make them immune to rationally based arguments v_v

I don't know what this had to do with my point about invertebrates. I never suggested to "deny things because they're different".

And of course it's subjective, I'm talking morality here which is subjective.

Erhem:

Torturing invertebrates doesn't count, that isn't illegal. That's because they are considered less close to human or less able to experience pain or suffer or whatever - so you see, this is the kind of thing I'm talking about.

In fewer words: 'different'.

We are talking about morality here, and I make a counter argument to some commonly claimed morals... and morality is thrown against me with words such as "obvious" precluding it.

---

This is not a philosophy paper by origin, but it is an aggregation of numerous papers on the bioethics of stem cells, abortion and human potentiality. If anything, I believe that this system at the core is cold, clear logic that accurately describes anything involved with the value of any thinking being with respect to the resources involved. After all, in business, time is money. One thing physics loves to note, energy is mass.

[Ashendant]

Lot of stuff.

I'm going to copy my theory on how to treat abortion here

Ah the differences between "sentient,sapient" and "sentient,non-sapient" life how interesting, all-or-most animals are sentient, humans are the only sapient being, with a few claims that cetaceans might be sapient, and some of hose arguments hold ground.

So I'm going to comment that all sapient being should be respected as equals to humans(even if other examples are doubt, might as well say preparing for the future yes), sentient beings should be respected as being with emotions but not on the equal round as sapient beings, means that we can hunt and breed them for feeding, this only because it's necessary, with the ability to make meat in laboratory in the future(very-near future), this might kill the necessity to hunt and fish.
I said this to blow the argument that we are hypocrites for killing cows for food and not fetus and babies.

Now I'll explain my argument about abortion.

The fetus is a parasite if unwanted, i mean unwanted as in after serious ponderation, not some state-of-shock claims, a fetus is the beginning of a human being but is not a human being, some people might argue that we should kill the baby no matter what after it has been killed, others say that we should never touch a fetus, as it is a human being, and both claim there isn't a drawn line when it's human or not, or define lines by the wrong parameter(when the heart starts beating),I AGREE WITH NEITHER, there is in fact a clear line when a baby can be judged as a human or not, it's called the brain and when the first electric reactions start in it, this makes it a sapient being that should be respected, in two exceptions, the baby is going to have a serious disease or cripple that the parents can't deal with, and the mother is in danger, that is my opinion on abortion.

For someone else that doesn't know:
-Sentient-the ability to feel or perceive pain and pleasure.
-Sapient-the ability to think abstractly or have "Wisdom"

[The Omnissiunt One]

Lot of stuff.

I'm going to copy my theory on how to treat abortion here

Ah the differences between "sentient,sapient" and "sentient,non-sapient" life how interesting, all-or-most animals are sentient, humans are the only sapient being, with a few claims that cetaceans might be sapient, and some of hose arguments hold ground.

So I'm going to comment that all sapient being should be respected as equals to humans(even if other examples are doubt, might as well say preparing for the future yes), sentient beings should be respected as being with emotions but not on the equal round as sapient beings, means that we can hunt and breed them for feeding, this only because it's necessary, with the ability to make meat in laboratory in the future(very-near future), this might kill the necessity to hunt and fish.
I said this to blow the argument that we are hypocrites for killing cows for food and not fetus and babies.

Now I'll explain my argument about abortion.

The fetus is a parasite if unwanted, i mean unwanted as in after serious ponderation, not some state-of-shock claims, a fetus is the beginning of a human being but is not a human being, some people might argue that we should kill the baby no matter what after it has been killed, others say that we should never touch a fetus, as it is a human being, and both claim there isn't a drawn line when it's human or not, or define lines by the wrong parameter(when the heart starts beating),I AGREE WITH NEITHER, there is in fact a clear line when a baby can be judged as a human or not, it's called the brain and when the first electric reactions start in it, this makes it a sapient being that should be respected, in two exceptions, the baby is going to have a serious disease or cripple that the parents can't deal with, and the mother is in danger, that is my opinion on abortion.

For someone else that doesn't know:
-Sentient-the ability to feel or perceive pain and pleasure.
-Sapient-the ability to think abstractly or have "Wisdom"

It is far from necessary at the moment to hunt and fish for food. I manage on a pescetarian diet, and could do so on a vegan diet, with relatively minor consequences for myself. That doesn't mean I think killing cows is necessarily wrong -mainly I'm opposed to the suffering in the meat industry- but, nonetheless, in the West at least, necessity can no longer be used to defend eating meat.

As for abortion, it seems dubious that the baby is capable of abstract thought as soon as its brain starts functioning. Quite what the moral relevance of abstract thought is, I'm not sure, but a baby probably doesn't have that until much later on, probably until after it's born.

[Ashendant]

Lot of stuff.

I'm going to copy my theory on how to treat abortion here

Ah the differences between "sentient,sapient" and "sentient,non-sapient" life how interesting, all-or-most animals are sentient, humans are the only sapient being, with a few claims that cetaceans might be sapient, and some of hose arguments hold ground.

So I'm going to comment that all sapient being should be respected as equals to humans(even if other examples are doubt, might as well say preparing for the future yes), sentient beings should be respected as being with emotions but not on the equal round as sapient beings, means that we can hunt and breed them for feeding, this only because it's necessary, with the ability to make meat in laboratory in the future(very-near future), this might kill the necessity to hunt and fish.
I said this to blow the argument that we are hypocrites for killing cows for food and not fetus and babies.

Now I'll explain my argument about abortion.

The fetus is a parasite if unwanted, i mean unwanted as in after serious ponderation, not some state-of-shock claims, a fetus is the beginning of a human being but is not a human being, some people might argue that we should kill the baby no matter what after it has been killed, others say that we should never touch a fetus, as it is a human being, and both claim there isn't a drawn line when it's human or not, or define lines by the wrong parameter(when the heart starts beating),I AGREE WITH NEITHER, there is in fact a clear line when a baby can be judged as a human or not, it's called the brain and when the first electric reactions start in it, this makes it a sapient being that should be respected, in two exceptions, the baby is going to have a serious disease or cripple that the parents can't deal with, and the mother is in danger, that is my opinion on abortion.

For someone else that doesn't know:
-Sentient-the ability to feel or perceive pain and pleasure.
-Sapient-the ability to think abstractly or have "Wisdom"

It is far from necessary at the moment to hunt and fish for food. I manage on a pescetarian diet, and could do so on a vegan diet, with relatively minor consequences for myself. That doesn't mean I think killing cows is necessarily wrong -mainly I'm opposed to the suffering in the meat industry- but, nonetheless, in the West at least, necessity can no longer be used to defend eating meat.

As for abortion, it seems dubious that the baby is capable of abstract thought as soon as its brain starts functioning. Quite what the moral relevance of abstract thought is, I'm not sure, but a baby probably doesn't have that until much later on, probably until after it's born.

I don't know exactly the differences between america and europe in terms of animal slaughter and raising, i think here in europe things are far more humane in that and american super-cow meat is forbidden here(no wonder), eating flesh and fish is a necessity, no matter what vegans say not eating meat/fish is far more dangerous to a persons health than eating it, of course in the very very (very!)near future all or most meat will be grown in laboratory, science is awesome in regards to this, i heard they only had problems in regard to the texture of the meat.

I'm not saying that the baby is capable of abstract thought when he's brain start functioning, i'm saying that the baby should be respected as a sentient and sapient being(the last one due to heritage) when he's brain starts functioning when he can feel pain and pleasure as a sentient being, and because the brain is what define being human(despise Christianbeliefs that the heart is what make a human human), the grey matter is what matters.

[The Omnissiunt One]

[quote='Synackaon' pid='75777' dateline='1277031323']Lot of stuff.

I'm going to copy my theory on how to treat abortion here

Ah the differences between "sentient,sapient" and "sentient,non-sapient" life how interesting, all-or-most animals are sentient, humans are the only sapient being, with a few claims that cetaceans might be sapient, and some of hose arguments hold ground.

So I'm going to comment that all sapient being should be respected as equals to humans(even if other examples are doubt, might as well say preparing for the future yes), sentient beings should be respected as being with emotions but not on the equal round as sapient beings, means that we can hunt and breed them for feeding, this only because it's necessary, with the ability to make meat in laboratory in the future(very-near future), this might kill the necessity to hunt and fish.
I said this to blow the argument that we are hypocrites for killing cows for food and not fetus and babies.

Now I'll explain my argument about abortion.

The fetus is a parasite if unwanted, i mean unwanted as in after serious ponderation, not some state-of-shock claims, a fetus is the beginning of a human being but is not a human being, some people might argue that we should kill the baby no matter what after it has been killed, others say that we should never touch a fetus, as it is a human being, and both claim there isn't a drawn line when it's human or not, or define lines by the wrong parameter(when the heart starts beating),I AGREE WITH NEITHER, there is in fact a clear line when a baby can be judged as a human or not, it's called the brain and when the first electric reactions start in it, this makes it a sapient being that should be respected, in two exceptions, the baby is going to have a serious disease or cripple that the parents can't deal with, and the mother is in danger, that is my opinion on abortion.

For someone else that doesn't know:
-Sentient-the ability to feel or perceive pain and pleasure.
-Sapient-the ability to think abstractly or have "Wisdom"

It is far from necessary at the moment to hunt and fish for food. I manage on a pescetarian diet, and could do so on a vegan diet, with relatively minor consequences for myself. That doesn't mean I think killing cows is necessarily wrong -mainly I'm opposed to the suffering in the meat industry- but, nonetheless, in the West at least, necessity can no longer be used to defend eating meat.

As for abortion, it seems dubious that the baby is capable of abstract thought as soon as its brain starts functioning. Quite what the moral relevance of abstract thought is, I'm not sure, but a baby probably doesn't have that until much later on, probably until after it's born.

I don't know exactly the differences between america and europe in terms of animal slaughter and raising, i think here in europe things are far more humane in that and american super-cow meat is forbidden here(no wonder), eating flesh and fish is a necessity, no matter what vegans say not eating meat/fish is far more dangerous to a persons health than eating it, of course in the very very (very!)near future all or most meat will be grown in laboratory, science is awesome in regards to this, i heard they only had problems in regard to the texture of the meat.

Being British, I'm a European too, and, whilst I think our farming practices are better than the Americans', they're far from perfect in my view. As for the health risks, what you say runs contrary to most health organisations: 'The American Dietetic Association annually publishes its position on vegan and vegetarian diets:

"[A]ppropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence, and for athletes.[6]
In 2003, the Dietitians of Canada joined with the ADA to release a position paper to the same effect.[85] Similarly, the British Nutrition Foundation considers "well balanced" vegetarian diets to be nutritionally adequate,[86] and the Irish Nutrition and Dietetic Institute considers "well planned" vegetarian diets to be "nutritionally balanced for both adults and children." '

I'm not saying that the baby is capable of abstract thought when he's brain start functioning, i'm saying that the baby should be respected as a sentient and sapient being(the last one due to heritage) when he's brain starts functioning when he can feel pain and pleasure as a sentient being, and because the brain is what define being human(despise Christianbeliefs that the heart is what make a human human), the grey matter is what matters.

The brain isn't what defines being human. Many animals have one, even if ours has a larger cerebral cortex. Even a more advanced foetus is less intellectually developed than higher animals like chimps, dolphins, whales and pigs, so I don't see why being human should be the criterion for value of life.

[Ashendant]

[quote='Synackaon' pid='75777' dateline='1277031323']Lot of stuff.

I'm going to copy my theory on how to treat abortion here

Ah the differences between "sentient,sapient" and "sentient,non-sapient" life how interesting, all-or-most animals are sentient, humans are the only sapient being, with a few claims that cetaceans might be sapient, and some of hose arguments hold ground.

So I'm going to comment that all sapient being should be respected as equals to humans(even if other examples are doubt, might as well say preparing for the future yes), sentient beings should be respected as being with emotions but not on the equal round as sapient beings, means that we can hunt and breed them for feeding, this only because it's necessary, with the ability to make meat in laboratory in the future(very-near future), this might kill the necessity to hunt and fish.
I said this to blow the argument that we are hypocrites for killing cows for food and not fetus and babies.

Now I'll explain my argument about abortion.

The fetus is a parasite if unwanted, i mean unwanted as in after serious ponderation, not some state-of-shock claims, a fetus is the beginning of a human being but is not a human being, some people might argue that we should kill the baby no matter what after it has been killed, others say that we should never touch a fetus, as it is a human being, and both claim there isn't a drawn line when it's human or not, or define lines by the wrong parameter(when the heart starts beating),I AGREE WITH NEITHER, there is in fact a clear line when a baby can be judged as a human or not, it's called the brain and when the first electric reactions start in it, this makes it a sapient being that should be respected, in two exceptions, the baby is going to have a serious disease or cripple that the parents can't deal with, and the mother is in danger, that is my opinion on abortion.

For someone else that doesn't know:
-Sentient-the ability to feel or perceive pain and pleasure.
-Sapient-the ability to think abstractly or have "Wisdom"

It is far from necessary at the moment to hunt and fish for food. I manage on a pescetarian diet, and could do so on a vegan diet, with relatively minor consequences for myself. That doesn't mean I think killing cows is necessarily wrong -mainly I'm opposed to the suffering in the meat industry- but, nonetheless, in the West at least, necessity can no longer be used to defend eating meat.

As for abortion, it seems dubious that the baby is capable of abstract thought as soon as its brain starts functioning. Quite what the moral relevance of abstract thought is, I'm not sure, but a baby probably doesn't have that until much later on, probably until after it's born.

I don't know exactly the differences between america and europe in terms of animal slaughter and raising, i think here in europe things are far more humane in that and american super-cow meat is forbidden here(no wonder), eating flesh and fish is a necessity, no matter what vegans say not eating meat/fish is far more dangerous to a persons health than eating it, of course in the very very (very!)near future all or most meat will be grown in laboratory, science is awesome in regards to this, i heard they only had problems in regard to the texture of the meat.

Being British, I'm a European too, and, whilst I think our farming practices are better than the Americans', they're far from perfect in my view. As for the health risks, what you say runs contrary to most health organisations: 'The American Dietetic Association annually publishes its position on vegan and vegetarian diets:

"[A]ppropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence, and for athletes.[6]
In 2003, the Dietitians of Canada joined with the ADA to release a position paper to the same effect.[85] Similarly, the British Nutrition Foundation considers "well balanced" vegetarian diets to be nutritionally adequate,[86] and the Irish Nutrition and Dietetic Institute considers "well planned" vegetarian diets to be "nutritionally balanced for both adults and children." '

I'm not saying that the baby is capable of abstract thought when he's brain start functioning, i'm saying that the baby should be respected as a sentient and sapient being(the last one due to heritage) when he's brain starts functioning when he can feel pain and pleasure as a sentient being, and because the brain is what define being human(despise Christianbeliefs that the heart is what make a human human), the grey matter is what matters.

The brain isn't what defines being human. Many animals have one, even if ours has a larger cerebral cortex. Even a more advanced foetus is less intellectually developed than higher animals like chimps, dolphins, whales and pigs, so I don't see why being human should be the criterion for value of life.

No, i said that the brain is what define us as sapient being and that all sapient beings should be treated as equals, a sapient infant should be respected when his brain starts functioning, meaning he has full potential of the brain ready to grow, our brain define us as sapient beings and that's why we should respect each other, this also happens if dolphins are found to be sapient(tests have proven this in small detail), they should be respected, because sapient beings are on a higher level than non-sapient sentient animals, just as they are one level above plants, plants over fungi, fungi over bacterias and microbes, bacterias and microbe over plankton and virus(probably in the wrong order)

[The Omnissiunt One]

No, i said that the brain is what define us as sapient being and that all sapient beings should be treated as equals, a sapient infant should be respected when his brain starts functioning, meaning he has full potential of the brain ready to grow, our brain define us as sapient beings and that's why we should respect each other, this also happens if dolphins are found to be sapient(tests have proven this in small detail), they should be respected, because sapient beings are on a higher level than non-sapient sentient animals, just as they are one level above plants, plants over fungi, fungi over bacterias and microbes, bacterias and microbe over plankton and virus(probably in the wrong order)

My point is that an infant isn't sapient, as far as we can tell, and, even if it were, I fail to see why this is the sole criterion for the value of life. Surely personhood is defined by, say, the ability to plan for the future, because then to take that being's life would violate his or her interests, which most people regard as wrong.

[rjh4 is back]

In matter of a developing fetus, during the early to mid stages of growth there is insufficient brain mass, folding and electrical activity to sustain the potential for that individual to grow into a functioning adult. This area of philosophy, if you are curious, is often called the potentiality argument. Often it is used to argue against abortion, however I am using it to show that a developing fetus during much of its development is fundamentally a nonperson. If it were to be removed or birthed during those times and it's body was kept functionally alive, it would never develop into a thinking individual. No exceptions. That is due to the complexity of biology involved.

Syn, your concept of potentiality seem to center around the potentiality of a child/fetus only after it is separated from its mother. What is the basis for this? Wouldn't it be more logical or flow more naturally to argue potentiality from the perspective of what is potentially possible if the fetus is left in its normal place (i.e., in the mother's womb if it is fetus/pre-born baby, or in the parent's care after birth)? In fact, you go on to say:

"To establish the clear illegality of destroying an infant without consent as another, one must recall that an infant has the clear potential, assuming all bodily needs are met, to develop into a thinking individual. "

If "assuming all bodily needs are met" is part of the analysis of potentiality, then it seem to me this would seem to support the idea that potentiality should be assessed from the perspective of what is potentially possible if the fetus is left in its normal place, not after separation from its mother.

This system of thought thoroughly discards emotion in favor of potential, where potential to develop into/further as a thinking being and the potential to live to the maximum age. This is due to the tied nature of aging (time) and the development of thought, or as we physicists say:

d(developingThought)
-----------------
d(time)

Wherever the rate is highest implies the highest value, the lowest, the lowest value. Therefore the most valuable are the developed beings with the best cognitive development. But consider this - this is an equivalency statement for only one (1) individual. An infant is less valuable than a child, a child less than a teen, a teen less than an adult, with an adult more valuable than the elderly.

As an aside, I never knew that physics dealt with issues such as potentiality of human life such that physicists would be known to say d(developing thought)/d(time).

Anyway, are the "d"s here refering to changes? It seems so. And if that is the case, I fail to see how you reach the conclusion that "An infant is less valuable than a child, a child less than a teen, a teen less than an adult, with an adult more valuable than the elderly". It seems pretty evident to me that children do a lot more developing (even in mind) per unit of time than adults do and that such development/time decreases as time goes on (the older one gets the less development there is per unit of time). Of course this is a generalization and individuals may vary on this depending on how ambitious they are in developing as they age, but I think it is valid generally. If so, then it would seem that a child would be more valuable than a teen, a teen more valuable then an adult. I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on this.

Please note, my arguments above should not be taken in any way that I agree that potentiality should be the basis for making life/death decisions for individuals (including preborn ones) or making judgements of the value of individuals.

[Autumnlicious]

In matter of a developing fetus, during the early to mid stages of growth there is insufficient brain mass, folding and electrical activity to sustain the potential for that individual to grow into a functioning adult. This area of philosophy, if you are curious, is often called the potentiality argument. Often it is used to argue against abortion, however I am using it to show that a developing fetus during much of its development is fundamentally a nonperson. If it were to be removed or birthed during those times and it's body was kept functionally alive, it would never develop into a thinking individual. No exceptions. That is due to the complexity of biology involved.

Syn, your concept of potentiality seem to center around the potentiality of a child/fetus only after it is separated from its mother. What is the basis for this? Wouldn't it be more logical or flow more naturally to argue potentiality from the perspective of what is potentially possible if the fetus is left in its normal place (i.e., in the mother's womb if it is fetus/pre-born baby, or in the parent's care after birth)? In fact, you go on to say:

"To establish the clear illegality of destroying an infant without consent as another, one must recall that an infant has the clear potential, assuming all bodily needs are met, to develop into a thinking individual. "

If "assuming all bodily needs are met" is part of the analysis of potentiality, then it seem to me this would seem to support the idea that potentiality should be assessed from the perspective of what is potentially possible if the fetus is left in its normal place, not after separation from its mother.

I am uncertain where the disconnect is. I define a set up that if the lump of flesh inside of a woman were to be removed and magically kept simply alive, then if it were to develop thought, much like an infant, than it is an infant. The thing the is different between an infant and a simple fetus is the capability, when all physical needs are taken care of, to develop a mind close to, equal, or greter than it's forebears.

This situation is set up to define when a fetus becomes an infant. Quite possibly one can empirically determine in vitro the transition from fetus to infant. However, in vivo, the mother is constantly putting in resource, hormones and providing the environment to continue growth of the fetus, where by then making the potential of a human being concrete.

If we were to stop those instructions, the commands to build and the fetus were to still have the potential for thought (brain activity is a loose measure of such, but not one I'd appreciate as the capability once "out of the womb", implying a functional individual, to develop a mind is still undefined except through observation and time). In a sense, as the infant approaches completeness, the rate of which it takes resource approaches zero (as a direct vampiric or parasitical resource drain on the mothers body) - what we want to know is, how early is early?.

The way biology grows in stages, in leaps and bounds, makes it quite possible that there exists a point where the fetus could recover (assuming ALL bodily needs are taken care of ideally)(read italicized) being removed from the womb and develop into a capable individual. We want to preserve that.

What I mean ideally is, were we to have technology to provide all life support for a fetus but none of the external commands that the mother provides to cause development, there would be a slight gradient of time where a fetus becomes an infant. In this motion, we are testing for self-hosting (It's a CS term, but quite useful in my opinion), testing the current growth of the mind to see if it can grow into an individual.

This system of thought thoroughly discards emotion in favor of potential, where potential to develop into/further as a thinking being and the potential to live to the maximum age. This is due to the tied nature of aging (time) and the development of thought, or as we physicists say:

d(developingThought)
-----------------
d(time)

Wherever the rate is highest implies the highest value, the lowest, the lowest value. Therefore the most valuable are the developed beings with the best cognitive development. But consider this - this is an equivalency statement for only one (1) individual. An infant is less valuable than a child, a child less than a teen, a teen less than an adult, with an adult more valuable than the elderly.

As an aside, I never knew that physics dealt with issues such as potentiality of human life such that physicists would be known to say d(developing thought)/d(time).

Anyway, are the "d"s here refering to changes? It seems so. And if that is the case, I fail to see how you reach the conclusion that "An infant is less valuable than a child, a child less than a teen, a teen less than an adult, with an adult more valuable than the elderly". It seems pretty evident to me that children do a lot more developing (even in mind) per unit of time than adults do and that such development/time decreases as time goes on (the older one gets the less development there is per unit of time). Of course this is a generalization and individuals may vary on this depending on how ambitious they are in developing as they age, but I think it is valid generally. If so, then it would seem that a child would be more valuable than a teen, a teen more valuable then an adult. I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on this.

Please note, my arguments above should not be taken in any way that I agree that potentiality should be the basis for making life/death decisions for individuals (including preborn ones) or making judgements of the value of individuals.

Ah, but the maturity of the adults in case of their completeness, of their growth as an individual is at the maximum. Soon after adulthood, the degeneration and age of the body and mind begin slowly dominating in a growing rate - hence what is the 'person' is slowly being whittled away by dementia et al.

While children and infants are valuable, the prior is more valuable over the latter as the child has lived longer and has had more time to develop into a thinking individual. To sum it up bluntly, he [the child] has already shown he has gotten this far (lived that long and developed that long), so we already know the potential up to that point in present time has been attained. The infant, however, is still a crap shoot - it has simply not endured the ravages of time long enough to now to show that it will live even that long.

It's a matter of knowing that we all die one day, that we have a steady decline in abilities after adulthood, that those younger than adults grow in spurts and endure the growth of their minds also in brief periods before plateauing slightly. Here is a chart to explain:



I never stated that this is a catch all or absolute system. In fact, the more one knows about the intellectual development of a single human, that shifts the axis of value to the left or right. For example, a supreme genius child would shift and change the very graph by warping the value during those early years to be of greater value, ideally making it symmetrical (of the right side).

[rjh4 is back]

I am uncertain where the disconnect is. I define a set up that if the lump of flesh inside of a woman were to be removed and magically kept simply alive, then if it were to develop thought, much like an infant, than it is an infant. The thing the is different between an infant and a simple fetus is the capability, when all physical needs are taken care of, to develop a mind close to, equal, or greter than it's forebears.

This situation is set up to define when a fetus becomes an infant. Quite possibly one can empirically determine in vitro the transition from fetus to infant. However, in vivo, the mother is constantly putting in resource, hormones and providing the environment to continue growth of the fetus, where by then making the potential of a human being concrete.

If we were to stop those instructions, the commands to build and the fetus were to still have the potential for thought (brain activity is a loose measure of such, but not one I'd appreciate as the capability once "out of the womb", implying a functional individual, to develop a mind is still undefined except through observation and time). In a sense, as the infant approaches completeness, the rate of which it takes resource approaches zero (as a direct vampiric or parasitical resource drain on the mothers body) - what we want to know is, how early is early?.

The way biology grows in stages, in leaps and bounds, makes it quite possible that there exists a point where the fetus could recover (assuming ALL bodily needs are taken care of ideally)(read italicized) being removed from the womb and develop into a capable individual. We want to preserve that.

What I mean ideally is, were we to have technology to provide all life support for a fetus but none of the external commands that the mother provides to cause development, there would be a slight gradient of time where a fetus becomes an infant. In this motion, we are testing for self-hosting (It's a CS term, but quite useful in my opinion), testing the current growth of the mind to see if it can grow into an individual.

Thanks for responding, Syn.

I understand your position as far as you explained it. What I do not understand is why your analysis begins with what would happend if the fetus/unborn child is taken from the mother's womb. That does not seem like a logical place to start, especially when you take the postition that the analysis for infants is such that you consider that all the infants needs are being met. We all know that a newborn would die if left to themselves (nobody providing their needs for them) but if their needs are provided then they have the potential to reach maximum development. I think we also know that for a child to develop properly there needs to be more than just a meeting of physical needs (food and water), there must be a meeting of emotional needs, etc (which could be considered as providing their needs also). For the fetus/unborn child it is the same thing with the external commands that the mother provides for development being part of their provided needs. So what is the basis for using an analysis that excludes the external commands that the mother provides for development being part of their provided needs? That seems pretty arbitrary.

Ah, but the maturity of the adults in case of their completeness, of their growth as an individual is at the maximum. Soon after adulthood, the degeneration and age of the body and mind begin slowly dominating in a growing rate - hence what is the 'person' is slowly being whittled away by dementia et al.

While children and infants are valuable, the prior is more valuable over the latter as the child has lived longer and has had more time to develop into a thinking individual. To sum it up bluntly, he [the child] has already shown he has gotten this far (lived that long and developed that long), so we already know the potential up to that point in present time has been attained. The infant, however, is still a crap shoot - it has simply not endured the ravages of time long enough to now to show that it will live even that long.

It's a matter of knowing that we all die one day, that we have a steady decline in abilities after adulthood, that those younger than adults grow in spurts and endure the growth of their minds also in brief periods before plateauing slightly. Here is a chart to explain:



I never stated that this is a catch all or absolute system. In fact, the more one knows about the intellectual development of a single human, that shifts the axis of value to the left or right. For example, a supreme genius child would shift and change the very graph by warping the value during those early years to be of greater value, ideally making it symmetrical (of the right side).

But now it seems that you have abandoned the idea of potentiality for a standard of comparing the actual achieved level or current level of development. The latter seems much different than the former and the analysis for each would probably give different results.