Law of Charity and Theory of Choice

Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by RussellCrawford, Jan 5, 2014.

  1. RussellCrawford Banned Banned


    I really want to help you out. But you need to work with me and actually read what I post. The least objectionable post you have made states: "saving a fetus will surly result in the death of an already born person." You imply that I made this or a similar statement. Of course that statement by you is either a lie or an intentional misrepresentation. I am going to illustrate the difference in your lie and my statements.

    In my statement the time frame allows that a born baby/child/adult and a zygote/embryo/fetus are already dying. In such a case the "death" is not because of the saving of a fetus. Instead the baby dies because of the action that precedes the saving of the fetus, the choice to save the fetus. The baby didn't die because you saved the fetus, it died because you choose to save the fetus instead of the baby. So the death is not a result of saving the fetus but because earlier, you chose to save the fetus and let the baby die. It is your choice that kills the baby. The b/c/a and z/e/f are at a point in the time line of their life where they are already dying. The only way either can live is by being saved. That is where they are on the timeline of life. So your claim that saving the fetus "results in" the death of a baby is clearly wrong. What "results in" the death of the baby is the choice to let it die instead of saving it. A person could have chosen to save the baby.

    On a timeline the "choice" to save the fetus or the baby occurs before the death of either one. So the two are dying and the next thing that occurs in a timeline is a choice to save one or the other and the next thing that occurs is that one or the other dies. It is the choice of whom to save that determines who will live not the fact that death will occur.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Do you detect a similarity between these 2 statements?

    Holy crap, isn't it time to cesspool this??
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. RussellCrawford Banned Banned

    There are fine distinctions that you don't grasp.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Fraggle (also Tiassa: I just glanced at your remarks) - It would be interesting to see how you might classify some of the more striking language errors RussellCrawford is falling into. I found myself searching for categories like catachresis and periphrasis. Most folks would be just be responsive to appeals for clarity.

    I don't plan to go there. But I'll read whatever you post here.

    You have yet to make clear to your readers what you're talking about. You've adopted bizarre speech and placed unreasonable demands on them. You've coined obscure language like "Law of Charity". You've constructed facially false, nonsensical and absurd statements like "one must allow a born baby to die". There is nothing at all simple and direct in this. There are tacit rules to common rhetoric which you seem to pretend don't exist. You mentioned attending university. Do you honestly think your freshman English teacher would accept any of these devices in a term paper?

    Your statements by themselves demand explanation. Once you start noticing that people are unable to make sense of them, bells should be going off in your head. It should be evident to you that everyone here is reasonably intelligent and of above average education. That alone should spur you to trim your sails. But instead you've been accusing them of lacking powers of understanding. You seem insensitive to the fact that in debate the onus is on the proponent to deliver the proposition in clear plain speech. When an explanation becomes so complex as to confuse the rational reader, the proponent must expect questions, and should have already anticipated them when constructing the proposition in the first place. It counts against him to lay blame on the reader for failing to untangle statements which are convoluted to begin with. And even if there were some rational purpose for the use of convoluted speech (as in propounding a riddle) the proponent he would expect to be asked for clarification, and -- this is the biggie -- he would actually be responsive.

    Are you or are you not making a statement for or against the definition of life as set forth by that Court?

    Genotype and phenotype refer to traits -- as the term applies to taxonomy, evolutionary biology and related matters of science. This is a mistake in category. You are on a different page, looking for an alternative to the term viable fetus. The way to do that without dragging the reader behind your bumper is to say it in your opening remarks. The rules of logic, whether we are speaking in terms of rhetoric or geometry, place the onus squarely on the proponent to begin with an established fact upon which all sides will universally agree, and then to work his way to the fork in the road where controversy lingers. So for example, you need only open like this:

    In the landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision Roe v Wade the State of Texas argued that life begins at conception. The Court ruled against Texas, finding that the living person does not emerge from the embryo until it has achieved what the Court called viability. This was further defined as "able to survive outside the womb albeit with the aid of life support". I will argue here that the Court erred by an over-reliance on facts taken from the science of developmental embryology, whereas scientific jurisdiction over the question of life properly belongs to the field of genetics. In particular, I will argue that there is an objective test for the emergence of the living person from the primitive embryo, which is measurable by referring to a minimum set of physical characters, which, once they appear, complete a checklist of traits, and that checklist is identical to the one that geneticists universally agree distinguishes the human phenotype from all other taxa.

    Then from there take up your crusade.

    The product of conception is an embryo. And yes, there are ways to know if an embryo is alive. Do I really need to list them?

    There is a way to know the expectation of a live birth, E[x]. But so what? E[x] is germane to the medical recommendation to abort, but only on a case-by-case basis. It has no relevance to your thesis, unless you intend to deviate from the interpretation I gave above.

    The language here is atrocious. Drop the artifice and speak plainly. This should read "or if it will reach viability", or words to that effect. You are trying to make a statement about things that can go wrong during embryonic development, but "having enough human DNA" is not a proper characterization of any of them. It compounds the affront to the reader to say "to live as a human".

    Let me see if I can rewrite your sentence for you in plainspeak:

    I claim that until the DNA of the genotype "expresses" the correct phenotype there is no way to know if the product of conception is alive will be born alive or if it has enough human DNA to live as a human.

    It is my belief that during the early stages of embryonic development it's impossible to determine whether the fetus will reach viability.

    If this is not what you mean to say, then revise it. But don't regress!

    Promises, promises.

    Speech. Perhaps you mean:
    I reject the Supreme Court's decision to limit the mother's autonomy once the fetus has become viable

    This is your own obscure language. It has no meaning to the reader. You might as well insert a secret code here.

    This is meaningless to the reader. Until you can untangle this into clear speech, don't expect anyone to understand you. We're not mind readers. It might help to imagine that your life depended on getting your point across. Imagine you are a hostage tied to a chair in room where a bomb is ticking. You've managed to place a call by your voice activated phone. Your goal is to give the police directions to the hideout where the kidnappers stashed you. Tick, tick.

    No, your statements should be removed. Viability was decided upon in order to remove the legal ambiguity surrounding the question of "quickening", the idea that there is an onset of life sometime after conception. The state law relied on the definition "quickening at conception" which conflicted with other evidence of quickening entertained by the Court. It was their determination that an objective test for the existence of a person was that the fetus is able to survive ex utero, whether or not life support were needed. Therefore viability is the linchpin of the ongoing debate and cannot be removed from this discussion. You are of course free to argue against it until the cows come home. But we can't discard it.

    There is nothing that remotely gives this sentence meaning.

    The "interests of the nation" are embodied in the Constitution, statutes and common law. The woman's right to abort a non-viable fetus belongs to common law, after the Supreme Court reviewed the applicable laws, in the light of judicial principals and doctrines (such as precedent). The "interests of the nation" are advanced on many fronts, but the nature of the legal question turned on the balance between state's rights and civil rights.

    No. The Constitution protects "life, liberty and property" (Amends. 5 and 14) as a matter of civil rights, and it protects the states' rights (vaguely generalized in Amend. 10) which includes the states' claims that they may enact statutes which criminalize offenses against the person. The court determined that, owing to the arbitrary ways states can assign personhood to a fetus, and in rejecting the Texas claim that the "quickening of personhood" occurs as conception, the duty to protect the civil right of life to persons -- which gave rise to a Constitutional claim within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in the first place (Marbury v Madison) -- required that an objective test be found for relating fetus and person. Viability was the answer, and it's a very good answer. And since it's the law of the land, the government has a duty to protect the viable fetus equally to the protections afforded all other persons.

    Gawd. How about In my opinion the destruction of a viable fetus is the same as taking a life.

    A state can't reverse Roe v Wade, nor can they prosecute an unconstitutional law without inviting the wrath of the Supreme Court. Nor does abortion pertain to live births. That leaves this both absurd and moot.

    A woman does not have the right to destroy a viable fetus. The default position is to protect all persons equally, as provided by law. Equality is enshrined under the Equal Protection Clause of Amend. 14.

    Neither "trust" nor "right decision" matter. It's a matter of law. That requires a careful definition of the "elements of the offense" of the crime of murder, to include any case involving the murder of a viable fetus.

    No, my position is that common law unfairly protects states' rights at the expense of far too many injuries of civil rights and liberties. The best example is the legalization of slavery, the Jim Crow laws, discrimination against women, and cruel and unusual punishments historically inflicted by states; injuries which all flourished under the banner of states' rights.

    This is an example of obscure speech that does nothing except to confuse readers.

    The viable fetus has a right to life. In rare medical cases that fetus may not remain viable into the late term. Its termination, in order to preserve the mother's life, may be medically necessary and would not violate Roe v Wade. On the other hand, the state doesn't pretend to ignore the legal status of a viable fetus, and it is authorized under Roe v Wade to prefer murder and/or child endangerment charges if the mother were to intentionally terminate and/or harm her viable fetus.

    No they don't. Many women are serving life sentences or have been executed for murdering their children, and many more have served time for injuring theirs.

    I am leery of Christians who are phobic about Orthodoxy (churches) since it tends to foment an alienated loner-type of pathological religious ideation which I find very dangerous. But the rest of what you said is very appealing. Any religion that shuns the public policy arena is most likely not a public threat. The rest may be.

    EDIT: I may have misunderstood you. You may have meant "we really like Jesus and limit our ideals to matters of the church, not matters of public policy." If so, my remark above wouldn't apply to your religious sect.

    And we are all telling you we have a problem with the absurdity of this remark.

    There are ethical and legal reasons to protect the right of life retained by the viable fetus.

    See my remarks above about this construction.

    Speech. 1% of all pregnancies that survive the first trimester will subsequently be terminated.

    Immaterial. It's either viable or not.

    Speech. The rate of live births is 99%. There is no such thing as "risk of living". That's one of the most convoluted things you've posted. The rest of that, but does not increase after birth, is an affront to the reader. Why you insist on this bizarre language is puzzling.

    You haven't defined "extending a life". This is another bizarre formulation. if you mean Mortality of premature births exceeds that of full term births then just say so, although it should be self-evident.

    The focus is on saving all human beings, to include all viable fetuses.

    "Scientific Abortion Laws" conveys nothing meaningful.

    Schools should (and do) make young people aware of Roe v Wade, and the consequences of unprotected sex, with generous warnings about STDs. So we should probably leave the schools alone.

    No, we respect their rights of privacy, dignity and equal access to health care. At the same time we respect the right to life of any viable fetus.

    That would comport with similar chronic problems there.

    Not unless they are avoiding their obstetrician's advice.

    I hope you will get on board with the English language.

    I think you have a convoluted sense of what laws are.

    Oh good, then you will appreciate all the criticism I've offered so far.

    It only takes an average intelligence to wonder why you are putting us through this.

    Only by developing some facility in the basics of rhetoric will you ever succeed in persuading people of average intelligence to adopt your views on things.

    Will you look for a guidebook on English writing skills? You should enroll in a remedial English class at your local junior college, or online.

    As Groucho said, "Those are my opinions. If you don't like them, I have more."

    I think I've covered the bases here.

    It's your own skills that are your best asset. You should think about the volume of feedback you got when you launched into this and wonder why folks were so responsive.

    I haven't had a chance to do much but to react to the strange language you are using.

    Then your quest has been fruitful.

    Strike that whole sentence. There is no science in anything you have propounded here. Nor have you succeeded in wedging some hypothetical law into this. In fact you've only talked around science and law. There has been no direct treatment of either, nor are they applicable to any of the points you've made.

    There are others

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    .. the key to improving your wording is to start over. I'm trying to remember who it was who said "before I could finally write anything meaningful I first had to write all the meaningless things that ever occurred to me." Words to that effect. This is where you are. You're just stuck in a phase. Dump all this crap out of your system and rewire your speech pathways. Above all, try to speak naturally and stop forcing square pegs into round holes. Be as clear and logical as you can. Set the direction of the thread by laying down your proposition in plain speech.

    I don't agree with much of it, and I'm not even sure I understand any of your reasons for saying it. The rest is up to you. Make me understand. But I guarantee you, I will not take a position on science any different than the folks you were railing against. They are among the cream of the crop at SciForums. You could learn a lot from them if you ever happened to take an interest in anything remotely technical.
    Last edited: Jan 11, 2014
  8. RussellCrawford Banned Banned


    I agree with many of your criticisms of my use of the English Language. And your remarks will be of great assistance to me.
    So thanks for working so hard.

    I was disappointed that you did not know the correct usage of the words genotype and phenotype. That pretty much limits what you can understand about what has been revealed. I was saddened when you expressed that you did not fully read my link to the "Scientific Abortion Laws" before commenting. And I was saddened because you did not read the explanations that define what the laws say and how they are related to society. Lacking those pieces of information, you could not make a reasonable response. Those are probably the reasons you struggled so hard with what you read.

    I was disappointed in that you spent so much time on Roe vs. Wade. I could care less about Roe because it has nothing to do with the Law of Charity. The viability claim of Roe becomes moot because in order to force the birth of a fetus one must allow a born baby to die.

    Because you do not have the right foundation in what I am revealing, and you did not read my page or my explanations, your advice is of little use. I am not likely to learn how to communicate with the people on this site, but I have successfully communicated with people of a greater, equal and lesser intelligence on other sites. So I think I will pass on your suggestion that I take a remedial English Class. I completed all my College Level English requirements way back in the early 1970's. But thanks for the advice.

    There is no doubt that I make language errors. But comprehension errors by the reader are also a problem in this arena.

    In order to explain new concepts one must use language that is new. And I have not constructed facially false, nonsensical and absurd statements, I have used language in a new way. I am sorry if it offended you, I should have warned you that there are new ideas involved that require you to get out of your zone of comfort.

    The correct way to say that one must allow a born baby to die is to simply say it. The pro life movement claims a fetus is a baby, so the term "born baby" is relevant.

    I doubt if I would have had to explain anything this complex to anyone in the form of a term paper. When observing and writing the laws I was assisted by a woman that was Phi Beta Kappa, Summa Cum Laude at a major eastern school. Of course she didn't assist here. She will be will be sad that you have exposed me as a complete idiot, because she thinks I am not. But then again that is just your opinion.

    By the way, what scientific laws have you been the first to observe and write about. I bet you have actually written a few laws yourself, right?

    I did notice people were unable to make sense of them, but other less educated people did make sense. I am dealing with a controversial issue. People fake not being able to understand for purposes of extending and confusing the conversation. My belief is that because people with less education can understand, the people on this site should be able to understand. If they can't when others can, is that a problem with me or a problem with them?

    The onus is on me. And I am doing my duty by answering any questions that may be asked. However, when I ask a person such a Fraggle to restate his question and he refuses, there is nothing I can do. I can only answer questions if people work with me. There are fine distinctions that need to be made that support what I say. If a person refuses to acknowledge the distinction when it is made, is that my fault. There is a distinction between two babies dying and saving one and the counterpart situation where there are two living babies and one is killed.

    The readers on this site started out by replying to me with a barrage of ad hominem remarks and they have not stopped. You have dealt your share of ad hominem remarks as well. The use of ad hominems in our first exchange did not bother me but set up a wall whereby the readers had to defend their ad hominems. And they did so by refusing to read and by refusing to comment fairly. If they misunderstood what I was saying, then the correct thing for the reader to do was ask probing questions, not faint disbelief that I would condemn them for not understanding.

    The readers here immediately staked out their intent to prove that I am some kind of nut. And they along with you have continued that line of attack. That is entirely unprofessional. I am ashamed of the readers' actions. If in fact the readers wanted to understand what I am saying they should have asked questions, not used ad hominems.

    I have never based anything I have said on the Roe vs. Wade ruling as it is moot when one brings into the equation the fact that one must allow the death of born babies in order to save a fetus that is viable.

    No, very roughly, the genotype is the code that builds the phenotype. The human genotype can be thought of as the set of plans that is used to build the human phenotype.

    No, your understanding of genotype and phenotype is incorrect.

    The paragraphs about Roe vs. Wade were deleted, I am not interested in Roe. It is moot when the Law of Charity is considered. Viability is of no value until a baby is actually born. Viable babies die before birth every day. So they were not actually "viable" babies were they?

    There is no way to prove an embryo is alive, has enough human DNA to live as a human or if it will be alive at birth. An ultrasound won't prove it is alive or will live to birth or even if it is human enough to live as a human. In fact because the DNA must "express" (look up DNA expression) the correct phenotype one cannot tell until birth if the embryo will produce a living baby. I am sorry, you just don't know what you are talking about. There is a "potential life" that is all there is.

    The fact is that if the fetus cannot be proved to be alive or human, and you must kill a live human to give it birth, there is no reason to force birth. In such a case one is simply killing one life to save another.

    Not having enough human DNA is the precise and correct usage. Until there is "expression" of the correct phenotype one cannot tell if the DNA is sufficient. I am sorry, that is a fact. I can explain for you the process of expression, but I will not waste my time doing so if you are not going to read what I write.

    What I wrote is correct, even with its new usage of words, and your writing is incorrect. I can explain why, if you want to know.

    I have deleted your discussion of the Supreme Court because it is moot with respect to the information revealed by the Laws.

    I also deleted your ad hominem responses.

    I also deleted your conversation about the Constitution. The Constitution is not relevant to scientific laws.

    I deleted your statements about state laws. They have no impact on scientific law.

    I deleted your discussion about common law as it is moot also.

    I removed another ad hominem.

    I removed another ad hominem.

    I deleted your remarks about religion.

    But those ethical and legal reasons are moot because you must let a born baby die to save the viable fetus. In such case you are killing one to save the other.

    I was reading along and about to answer, then I noticed another ad hominem. Shame on you.

    I like the way I said it, you understood what I meant and that is all that matter to me.

    Then you should have read them. It would have a made a difference.

    No the choice you have is to save the fetus that "may be viable" by letting a born baby die. That is not respecting life.

    I removed several more ad hominem remarks.

    Yes, but most of it was a waste of your time.

    I removed another ad hominem comment.

    I removed another ad hominem.

    I removed another ad hominem.

    You mean the non responsive answers and the ad hominems that were a waste of time. I could care less what the commenters said. They dug their own pits. I care about the truth and what other readers think. Your remarks here have defined you to the outside readers and my remarks have defined me. I am fine with how I have presented myself.

    Thanks for your opinion.

    Again, thanks for your opinion.

    I could learn a lot from them, they are well educated and very intelligent people. But on this subject they don't have a clue and have already made it clear they are more interested in keeping the status quo than in learning anything from a person like me. That is their right. They can close their minds.

    Once again thanks for your work. I appreciate your honesty and willingness to be rude and use ad hominems in an attempt to get your personal opinion out there. Most educated people won't stoop that low. You are unique.
  9. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Why is this is still in the science section?
  10. RussellCrawford Banned Banned

    Because the "Law of Charity" and the "Theory of Choice" are being discussed.

    You are welcome to disprove them if you can. All you need to do is disprove that more people are dying than can be saved or that it is not true that one must chose to save either a fetus or a baby/child/adult. So far you have claimed not to understand this very simply concept: "There are 7 billion people on earth, they are all dying. There are so many dying that one cannot save them all. Therefore there is always a pool of born people that are dying and can be saved. For that reason if one chooses to "save life" they have a choice, they can save one of the born people or they can let it die and save an unborn fetus instead. If they choose to save an unborn fetus, a born person will die because they are dying at a continuous rate and if not saved will continue to die.

    Pro lifers have done the best they can at this point to confuse everyone. I would stop if I were them and instead attempt to disprove the laws. The smoke screen has failed. Try dealing with the issues.
  11. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Those are not laws, they are just things you made up that have no scientific evidence to support them. Not only that, the explanations that you have provided are silly in the extreme, hence the question posed, "Why is this is still in the science section?"
  12. RussellCrawford Banned Banned

    They are in fact laws. I have proven that they are in fact laws and theories by comparing them to the accepted definition of what is a law. The proof is that they are laws.

    Simply making an unsupported statement is not proof. If you have an argument then make it. Calling the work of others silly and extreme is nothing but an ad hominem statement, of no value.

    Once you take time to understand what is being said, you will agree that they are laws. Until you can make a lucid argument without ad hominems your views have no value in a scientific sense.
  13. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    No, they aren't, you just made up a lot of nonsense.

    Sorry, but you did no such thing.

    Telling you that your made up stuff is such is not an ad hominem.

    I can read what you've written, it is nonsense, not law.
  14. RussellCrawford Banned Banned

    You seem to be confused and think that because words are similar, concepts are similar.

    In the statement of Fraggle, one can imply that there are thriving fetuses and babies and that saving the fetus kills the baby.

    In my statement, which is taken out of context, there are dying fetuses and dying babies and one must choose which to save.

    I know you still don't get it, but because you don't, your failure to understand is an indication as to why you can't understand the law.
  15. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    For someone who accuses everyone else of ad hominen attacks, you sure like to use them yourself.
  16. RussellCrawford Banned Banned

  17. RussellCrawford Banned Banned

    The fact is that every person on this site has had an opportunity to disprove the empirical evidence and the precepts that are the basis of this law. I have not "made up" a law, I have reported a series of empirical and logical evidence that I am describing with words. The description of the evidence yields a scientific law.

    At this time people have proffered invalid arguments. If there is anyone that thinks their argument is unfairly cast in a bad light or that I have made a misrepresentation of their argument, please bring it forward. I will address your issue.
  18. RussellCrawford Banned Banned

    When I read them, and saw the way they sounded I was surprised. I misstated a thought that I subsequently removed. -----I deleted the ad hominem. The deletion occurred quickly, before you could even answer.

    As a sign of good faith, you should delete your ad hominems.
  19. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

  20. RussellCrawford Banned Banned

    Are you posting for reference or are you saying it is proof that supports or does not support me?

    I based my OP on the definition on a major biology thread. The definition is on one of the first few posts. They are basically the same. Do I need to explain?

    You understand that if anything is "made up" the law is invalid. So if you have something to say, then I look forward to your comments.

    I am off to see my mother at an assisted living center. If you have a comment, it would be appreciated. I will answer when I return.
  21. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Hopefully, it will educate you as to what are laws in science.
  22. Walter L. Wagner Cosmic Truth Seeker Valued Senior Member

    somewhere he comes up with the supposition that people need to be 'saved' by outside agency. they don't. they 'save' themselves. by his accepting his supposition as true (which I don't believe it is), he develops a hypothesis that it is better to 'save' living people rather than those 'unborn'. but his original supposition simply isn't true.
  23. Read-Only Valued Senior Member

    Seriously, people! I can't imagine why anyone is bothering with this thread. Crawford is obviously off his meds and couldn't find his way out of an open paper bag. Just let this thing die and MAYBE he'll eventually go away!

Share This Page