Law of Charity and Theory of Choice

[RussellCrawford]

Among the "Scientific Abortion Laws" that control the impact of abortion on society is found a law called the "Law of Charity." One of many possible theories that are based in the "Law of Charity" is the "Theory of Choice":


The Law of Charity: There are more people dying than can be saved.

The "Law of Charity" is based upon the fact that all people die.



Simply put there are as many as 57 million people that die each year. The Theory of Choice states: A person must choose to either save a zygote/embryo/fetus or a born person. Every choice to save one life simply allows another to die. Pro lifers simply choose to save fetuses and let children die. There is no “net” gain in life saved due to the fact that these laws limit when life can actually be saved. The greatest error of pro lifers is that by attempting to save a fetus, they are causing the death of more people than one would expect. For example if a person uses their charity to save a born child then the odds are, the child will live. But if they attempt to save a fetus the odds of saving the fetus at conception is only 30 percent and at birth only 99.5 percent. Most of the time, pro lifers waste resources that could be used to save life.

 

[exchemist]

Among the "Scientific Abortion Laws" that control the impact of abortion on society is found a law called the "Law of Charity." One of many possible theories that are based in the "Law of Charity" is the "Theory of Choice":


The Law of Charity: There are more people dying than can be saved.

The "Law of Charity" is based upon the fact that all people die.



Simply put there are as many as 57 million people that die each year. The Theory of Choice states: A person must choose to either save a zygote/embryo/fetus or a born person. Every choice to save one life simply allows another to die. Pro lifers simply choose to save fetuses and let children die. There is no “net” gain in life saved due to the fact that these laws limit when life can actually be saved. The greatest error of pro lifers is that by attempting to save a fetus, they are causing the death of more people than one would expect. For example if a person uses their charity to save a born child then the odds are, the child will live. But if they attempt to save a fetus the odds of saving the fetus at conception is only 30 percent and at birth only 99.5 percent. Most of the time, pro lifers waste resources that could be used to save life.

This is nothing to do with biology or genetics, and is self-evident ballocks into the bargain.

If it were true that for every life saved, another must be lost, there would never be any point in attempting to save anybody's life. What a thoroughly stupid notion.

 

[Read-Only]

This is nothing to do with biology or genetics, and is self-evident ballocks into the bargain.

If it were true that for every life saved, another must be lost, there would never be any point in attempting to save anybody's life. What a thoroughly stupid notion.

Agreed. This whole business is just nonsense!

 

[RussellCrawford]

This is nothing to do with biology or genetics,.

It is a law of biology that every life dies and that there are more people dying than can be saved. The fact is that because the genotype of a human phenotype is passed forward, which supports the fact that it will always be true, there is a genetic connection.

and is self-evident ballocks into the bargain.

It is not self-evident as proved by the fact that you misunderstand the principle involved.

If it were true that for every life saved, another must be lost,.

You misunderstand the principle involved. All life is dying, one does not die because another is saved. Both are dying, one is saved, choosing which life a person saves is the issue. The law involves the "choice" of which life to save, not the killing of one to save the other. The distinction is critical.

there would never be any point in attempting to save anybody's life..

Of course there is a point in attempting to save life. But the law makes it clear which life you save is important. In fact the law makes it clear that triage is the correct method to determine which life to save.

What a thoroughly stupid notion.

As an educated person, I am sure you know that an ad hominem response is of no value. Especially when it is based upon your own misunderstanding of the issue. If we are going to discuss this issue, then please do not use ad hominem expressions. They waste time.

 

[RussellCrawford]

Agreed. This whole business is just nonsense!

Your ad hominem response is a direct result of you not understanding what you have read. There is no claim that for every life saved another must be lost according to the terms you imply. The critical difference in what I say and what you say is found in the fact that my explanation of the law makes it clear that all life is dying and that when one life is saved, due to a choice, another life continues to die. It does not imply in any manner whatsoever that one life is killed "because" the other is saved. The difference is critical.

 

[RussellCrawford]

This discussion has started with ad hominem remarks and proof that people have not read and considered what is posted before responding. I hope that we can move forward from this poor start and agree to respect each other and read and consider what is said by all parties to the discussion.

 

[Aqueous Id]

RussellCrawford,

I happen to agree with your position to protect the woman's right to choose and so I'm willing to consider what you have in mind but I haven't quite understood what you're thinking. I don't understand why you said "Pro lifers simply choose to save fetuses and let children die." After all, pro-lifers are primarily religious people who I think universally care about children. I think they make a lot of charitable contributions whenever they hear of cases of child poverty and neglect. And they run many hospitals (Shriner's, St Jude's and a number of Jewish, Catholic and Protestant hospitals come to mind) which specialize in giving medical care to severely injured children whose families are (or were) underinsured and unable to pay medical costs.

Maybe I missed your point. How are pro-lifers choosing the death of children? I didn't understand what you meant by "the odds of saving the fetus at conception is only 30 percent and at birth only 99.5 percent." These sound like cases of birth defects. Is that what you meant? It would never be 30% across the board since the natural abortion that normally takes place closer to the moment of conception goes unnoticed. And I see no clear connection to the use of resources, nor that any person would die just because some woman is in the labor room. Those rooms wouldn't be used for non-maternity emergency services or for terminal patients anyway. And labor and delivery is usually pretty quick as far as hospital convalescence is concerned.

 

[exchemist]

This discussion has started with ad hominem remarks and proof that people have not read and considered what is posted before responding. I hope that we can move forward from this poor start and agree to respect each other and read and consider what is said by all parties to the discussion.

There is no obligation on the part of educated people to respect poor or badly expressed ideas.

But, if we've misinterpreted what you are trying to say, please explain in more detail what is meant by

1) "Every choice to save one life simply allows another to die" and by

2) "Pro lifers simply choose to save fetuses and let children die"?

 

[Read-Only]

This discussion has started with ad hominem remarks and proof that people have not read and considered what is posted before responding. I hope that we can move forward from this poor start and agree to respect each other and read and consider what is said by all parties to the discussion.

This discussion started with you posting nonsense. Tell us - do you have a mental problem for which medication has been prescribed? Serious question.

 

[RussellCrawford]

This discussion started with you posting nonsense..

OK, there you have said it. Now if you can prove what you say it would mean something. Your statement is simply an ad hominem response and carries no weight at all.

Tell us - do you have a mental problem for which medication has been prescribed? Serious question.

That is simply another worthless ad hominem. You might want to look up the impact that an ad hominem fallacy has on a discussion.

If you are pro life:
Right now, you have a choice, you may choose to save an innocent born baby or you may choose to let that baby die and save a fetus instead. Which do you choose to save? Because of the "Law of Charity" you cannot save both.

 

[RussellCrawford]

RussellCrawford,
I happen to agree with your position to protect the woman's right to choose and so I'm willing to consider what you have in mind but I haven't quite understood what you're thinking. I don't understand why you said "Pro lifers simply choose to save fetuses and let children die."

There is a scientific law of which you are not aware. It is a demonstrable scientific fact that all people die and therefore there are more people dying than can be saved. The law brings forward a theory that says that because there are more people dying than can be saved, if we choose to save life, then we must choose which life to save. In effect there will always be more people dying than can be saved, regardless of the fact we save some. Therefore there is always a supply of lives that need to be saved.
In practice there are 7 billion people born and dying. They are dying at the rate of 1.8 per second. If we choose to save life, we must choose which life to save. We may save a born life, or we may save an unborn life. If we spend 1 second saving a fetus then in the time period, 1.8 born babies, children or adults will die.
Because 7 billion people are in fact dying, we cannot save them all. If we choose to save a born life, a fetus will die, if we save the fetus a born person will die. They do not die because we saved the other, they would have died anyway. The point is all about the choice. We can choose to save one or the other. The one we do not choose, dies. But when dealing with sets of born life vs. sets of unborn life, we cannot save both. Why, because a choice to save a fetus is a choice to allow a born baby to die. We can never save all the born life in a set because by choosing to save the fetus at any point we are choosing not to save a born baby out of an infinite set of born life. We have not chosen to kill the born baby, we have chosen to not save it and to save a fetus instead. If we spend one second attempting to save a fetus, then in that second 1.8 born people will die. Not because we killed them, but because we chose not to save them.

After all, pro-lifers are primarily religious people who I think universally care about children. I think they make a lot of charitable contributions whenever they hear of cases of child poverty and neglect. And they run many hospitals (Shriner's, St Jude's and a number of Jewish, Catholic and Protestant hospitals come to mind) which specialize in giving medical care to severely injured children whose families are (or were) underinsured and unable to pay medical costs.

From my experience the pro life movement is intentionally choosing to let born babies die regardless of the claim they are for saving life. For example for two years as this theory and law have worked their way through online peer review, pro lifers that are aware they are killing life, have chosen to continue to kill life. The fact that they save some and kill others is not a comfort to me. They have a choice of which life to save and they choose to let innocent born babies die.

Maybe I missed your point. How are pro-lifers choosing the death of children?

Pro lifers have a choice, they may choose to save innocent babies or they may choose to let them die. The fact is that if they choose to save fetuses, innocent babies die, if they choose to save babies, innocent fetuses die. My belief is that they should save innocent born babies, children and adults.

I didn't understand what you meant by "the odds of saving the fetus at conception is only 30 percent and at birth only 99.5 percent."

I am going to attempt to post a link. So far I have been unable to link to my sources. So if you don't get the link, email me or PM me. http://miscarriage.about.com/od/pregnancyafterloss/f/70percent.htm
The link shows that most "conceptions" die. I have tried to make it clear that there is a range from 70 to 99.5 percent that are --not-- miscarried.

These sound like cases of birth defects. Is that what you meant? It would never be 30% across the board since the natural abortion that normally takes place closer to the moment of conception goes unnoticed.

Yes, the claim of the pro life movement is that all conceptions are "babies" but the fact is that many of the conceptions could have never been babies because as many as 60 percent of those that die do so because of genetic flaws that do not allow them to be born as babies.

And I see no clear connection to the use of resources, nor that any person would die just because some woman is in the labor room. Those rooms wouldn't be used for non-maternity emergency services or for terminal patients anyway. And labor and delivery is usually pretty quick as far as hospital convalescence is concerned.

The "Law of Charity" is not dependent on resources. Why, because it is only dependent on the choice of which life to save. It is assumed that any resources that are available will be used the save the life chosen.

 

[exchemist]

There is a scientific law of which you are not aware. It is a demonstrable scientific fact that all people die and therefore there are more people dying than can be saved. The law brings forward a theory that says that because there are more people dying than can be saved, if we choose to save life, then we must choose which life to save. In effect there will always be more people dying than can be saved, regardless of the fact we save some. Therefore there is always a supply of lives that need to be saved.
In practice there are 7 billion people born and dying. They are dying at the rate of 1.8 per second. If we choose to save life, we must choose which life to save. We may save a born life, or we may save an unborn life. If we spend 1 second saving a fetus then in the time period, 1.8 born babies, children or adults will die.
Because 7 billion people are in fact dying, we cannot save them all. If we choose to save a born life, a fetus will die, if we save the fetus a born person will die. They do not die because we saved the other, they would have died anyway. The point is all about the choice. We can choose to save one or the other. The one we do not choose, dies. But when dealing with sets of born life vs. sets of unborn life, we cannot save both. Why, because a choice to save a fetus is a choice to allow a born baby to die. We can never save all the born life in a set because by choosing to save the fetus at any point we are choosing not to save a born baby out of an infinite set of born life. We have not chosen to kill the born baby, we have chosen to not save it and to save a fetus instead. If we spend one second attempting to save a fetus, then in that second 1.8 born people will die. Not because we killed them, but because we chose not to save them.




From my experience the pro life movement is intentionally choosing to let born babies die regardless of the claim they are for saving life. For example for two years as this theory and law have worked their way through online peer review, pro lifers that are aware they are killing life, have chosen to continue to kill life. The fact that they save some and kill others is not a comfort to me. They have a choice of which life to save and they choose to let innocent born babies die.




Pro lifers have a choice, they may choose to save innocent babies or they may choose to let them die. The fact is that if they choose to save fetuses, innocent babies die, if they choose to save babies, innocent fetuses die. My belief is that they should save innocent born babies, children and adults.





I am going to attempt to post a link. So far I have been unable to link to my sources. So if you don't get the link, email me or PM me. http://miscarriage.about.com/od/pregnancyafterloss/f/70percent.htm
The link shows that most "conceptions" die. I have tried to make it clear that there is a range from 70 to 99.5 percent that are --not-- miscarried.




Yes, the claim of the pro life movement is that all conceptions are "babies" but the fact is that many of the conceptions could have never been babies because as many as 60 percent of those that die do so because of genetic flaws that do not allow them to be born as babies.




The "Law of Charity" is not dependent on resources. Why, because it is only dependent on the choice of which life to save. It is assumed that any resources that are available will be used the save the life chosen.

Can you provide a reference to this "Law of Charity" or any other of the "scientific laws" that you say you have in mind?

 

[RussellCrawford]

There is no obligation on the part of educated people to respect poor or badly expressed ideas.

Because you don't understand what others do understand does not make the idea poorly expressed. But it is my duty to make certain that you have the opportunity to understand. I accept that obligation and thank you for allowing me to express the foundation of these laws.

But, if we've misinterpreted what you are trying to say, please explain in more detail what is meant by

In my explanation please keep in mind that I am not talking about killing one to save the other, I am speaking about choosing which life to save from what can be loosely called, and what seems to be, an infinite number of dying people.

1) "Every choice to save one life simply allows another to die" and by

The fact is that there are 7 billion people dying, and with each new born life, there is created another human that has turned the corner and is dying. One can imagine an infinite number of dying people and that would not be an outrageous thought. (even though such a thing is impossible)
Because literally everyone is dying, if one chooses to save life, they must choose which life to save (including their own). We are accustomed in our instant lives to needing to save the dying person that exists before us. We are not accustomed to the idea that in effect all humans are dying and that all people cannot be saved. So I recognize that it is an uncomfortable, but true proposition: If we choose to save life, we must choose which life to save and the lives we do not save die. (as do we all eventually) They do not die because we killed them, they die because we chose to save another life. Because the Law is based on Choice and not Resources, the fact that there are enough resources to save more does not enter into the equation.

2) "Pro lifers simply choose to save fetuses and let children die"?

Because there are more people dying than can be saved, one must choose which life to save. One may choose to save born babies, children and adults or they may choose to save fetuses. A choice to save a fetus is in effect a choice not to save a dying born baby or child and the born baby or child will die. Pro lifers therefor choose to save fetuses and to let born children die.

 

[RussellCrawford]

The link is http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com, I suggest that you read the "about" page before reading the blog. I also have a Facebook page that is linked on the very top of the blog. The Facebook page contains links to various sources I used with the laws. Keep in mind that the online peer review is currently in progress and that any comment you make will be greatly appreciated. The "Law of Charity" is the only law among the six that has currently completed what I consider a through peer review. There appear to be no problems with that Law.

 

[(Q)]

Among the "Scientific Abortion Laws" that control the impact of abortion on society is found a law called the "Law of Charity." One of many possible theories that are based in the "Law of Charity" is the "Theory of Choice":


The Law of Charity: There are more people dying than can be saved.

The "Law of Charity" is based upon the fact that all people die.

Did you just make up all that stuff?

Simply put there are as many as 57 million people that die each year. The Theory of Choice states: A person must choose to either save a zygote/embryo/fetus or a born person. Every choice to save one life simply allows another to die. Pro lifers simply choose to save fetuses and let children die. There is no “net” gain in life saved due to the fact that these laws limit when life can actually be saved. The greatest error of pro lifers is that by attempting to save a fetus, they are causing the death of more people than one would expect. For example if a person uses their charity to save a born child then the odds are, the child will live. But if they attempt to save a fetus the odds of saving the fetus at conception is only 30 percent and at birth only 99.5 percent. Most of the time, pro lifers waste resources that could be used to save life.

That is just silly. You can't save people from dying because everyone eventually dies. Saving fetuses does not directly affect other children dying, that's simply ridiculous.

 

[origin]

Because there are more people dying than can be saved, one must choose which life to save. One may choose to save born babies, children and adults or they may choose to save fetuses. A choice to save a fetus is in effect a choice not to save a dying born baby or child and the born baby or child will die. Pro lifers therefor choose to save fetuses and to let born children die.

That is not scientific, it is not logical and it is not even rational. It sounds more like the law of bizarro logic.

 

[exchemist]

The link is http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com, I suggest that you read the "about" page before reading the blog. I also have a Facebook page that is linked on the very top of the blog. The Facebook page contains links to various sources I used with the laws. Keep in mind that the online peer review is currently in progress and that any comment you make will be greatly appreciated. The "Law of Charity" is the only law among the six that has currently completed what I consider a through peer review. There appear to be no problems with that Law.

Aha. So in fact all these supposed "Laws" have been dreamt up by YOU and have as yet gained no wider acceptance, whether scientific or otherwise. I think that's enough for me.

 

[origin]

Keep in mind that the online peer review is currently in progress and that any comment you make will be greatly appreciated.

Online peer review - now that is a gem.

 

[spidergoat]

The flaw is that "saving" a fetus might only require some modest political activism. The fetus isn't usually in any danger, and simply carrying it to term would "save" it. But saving a child that is presumably sick takes much more time and effort.

 

[RussellCrawford]

Aha. So in fact all these supposed "Laws" have been dreamt up by YOU and have as yet gained no wider acceptance, whether scientific or otherwise. I think that's enough for me.

All laws are dreamed up by someone other than you. And that may be the problem.