Law of Charity and Theory of Choice

In normal peer review, as few as one person will review before publication. There has been a tremendous problem with standard peer review. http://www.the-scientist.com/?artic.../title/Fake-Paper-Exposes-Failed-Peer-Review/

And with online review thousands of people will review and there are fewer problems. Now that is the real gem.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Fewer "problems" but more woo woo.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Actually saving a fetus will not "only require some modest political activism," political activism has never been successful with regard to anti abortion activities. The Nazis completely outlawed abortion and made it a capital offense and still could not change abortion habits.

But the real failure with your idea is that all that needs to be done for many dying born humans is a change in law that, unlike anti abortion law, will be followed by most people.

Nearly all people want to save themselves and their families. Not many (20%) want to end abortion.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

With standard peer review your remarks would not even be accepted. I allow your ad hominem responses. It lets people see what type of person you are.
With online peer review the attacks are not slight and the reviews do not depend on a social network of friends. What you read with regard to these laws is not a friendly tit for tat, but a real discussion that cannot be had in standard peer review.

 

I do think there is a difference in the effort required to "save" a fetus from abortion, which is no effort at all as it's simply a matter of convincing someone not to get an abortion, the effort could consist of viewing a single piece of propaganda. While in contrast, saving a living human that is sick requires significant effort. Think of a doctor that saves people's live all day long. Being an anti-abortion activist in addition to her normal job wouldn't translate into more people dying during her shift.

 

Your ad hominem response is of no value at all to the discussion. I suggest that if you have a comment, support it with evidence. Simply talking trash about something you don't understand is a waste of time. If you think it is not scientific, then explain why. If you think it is not logical then explain why. If you think it is not rational, explain why. Your ad hominem remarks carry absolutely no weight and do not influence me or a reasonable person in any way.

 

I crafted the laws, and you didn't. That is the root of your problem.

It is not silly to save life.

No one claimed to be able to save everyone from dying. I claim that everyone dies and that you can only save people through triage for a time period. The same is true for the fetus, it cannot be saved indefinitely.

You need to read what I wrote. I don't say that saving a fetus causes death. The fetus and the born life are already dying. I say that choosing to save a baby allows a fetus to die and choosing to save a fetus allows a baby to die. Both were already dying. A choice to save one is a choice not to save the other.

You might want to read some of the other posts I made to others that show your errors in understanding more clearly. I can suggest a post for you to read, but you should read them all.

 

LOL. I have no problem with stuff you make up, you're free to make up an nonsense you wish and post it on forums. Of course, they aren't laws, no matter how much you want them to be.

But, your explanations are silly.

So what? You have still failed to make any valid points.

That is just pointless gibberish.

Your posts are garbage, they are nothing but nonsensical gobbledegook word salads.

 

Quite simply this makes no sense what so ever.

The infant mortality rate in the US is about 6 deaths per every 1000 live births or about 0.6%.

The abortion rate is about 200 abortions per every 1000 live births.

So are you really saying that if those 200 abortions were not done then the infant mortality rate would increase to about 172 deaths per 1000 live births or increase to about 17.2%?

Or are you saying since everybody dies you might as well end the life of the fetus?

I agree with a womans right to choose, but your logic seems to be completely nonexistent.

 

I am not the one that said that laws are dreamed up. That was a snide remark from a critic. My statement is that laws simply exist. They must be crafted into some form of writing that is understandable. And as nature would have it, that is difficult.-- Can you understand how difficult it is to make everyone happy? Some will always say that nothing I say makes sense. But that is not a reflection on me if others do understand. It is my duty to make as many people understand what I am saying as my skills allow.

The Law explained here is derived from empirical observation. It is a generally accepted fact that all life dies and that we cannot save all life. The "Law of Charity" states that there is more life dying than can be saved. That is empirically verifiable and true. Why, because it is universally accepted that all human life dies. The Theory of Choice states that one must choose which life to save and is a logical extension of the Law of Charity.

You have stepped into a 2 year conversation and only have a 3 day education of the subject of the conversation. It should be hard for you to understand.

Because you have just entered this conversation, you are unaware of the answers that have already been crafted and discussed that relate to your concerns. For example your concern about the elderly and who should be saved is resolved by the fact that a new form of triage would be used to determine who should and who should not be saved. Perhaps there would be no, or few, changes in your life.

The use of triage would likely not impact your age group. I am nearly 65 and doubt that I would benefit from any triage.

As with any new idea, there are difficult concepts that one must grasp. People get frustrated because they do not immediately understand what is being said. I attribute that to an entrenchment of current thought processes and current understanding of the world. When people become frustrated, they often take it out on me. That is a problem that would occur with anyone that tries to explain a difficult concept.

One difficult concept here is that there are more people dying than can be saved. We tend to think that with enough resources we can save everyone, but we can't because everyone dies.
Another difficult concept is that we must choose whom to save.
A third difficult concept is that those we choose to save will live and that those we do not choose to save will die.
A fourth difficult concept is that women are dynamic producers of life and that forcing one life to be born could actually deny life to another potential baby.

There are a lot of really difficult things that must be learned in order to understand what I am saying. It is not a simple task that can be learned in a day. The way these concepts work together can take years to fully understand. They took years to develop.

So back to your question. "How does refusal to perform an abortion, resulting in the birth of a (presumably) adequately healthy baby, eventually manifest as grief to another child, or human of any age? "

There is validity in what you say here. But it does not address the Law of Charity or the Theory of Choice. In no case do I propose that grief would occur to another child or human because of a refusal to perform an abortion. What I propose is that a person that has a duty to save life or otherwise is obligated to save life has a choice of which life he will save. That in effect is what I propose.

There is no dependence on the population bomb or any other similar theory.

Food or other resources do not impact the theory in any way. The Law is based only on choice.

Resources have no impact on the Law.

Again, resources or distribution of resources have no impact on the theory.

Again, resources have no impact on the Law.

Perhaps one of the most difficult concepts for a person to understand is that the Law of Charity http://www.Scientificabortionlaws.com outlined in the scientific laws that control abortion does not depend on resources. The law states that there are more people dying than can be saved. The theory that is most popular with regard to the law states that because there are more people dying than can be saved, one must choose whom to save. And there are only two groups that can be saved. First there are the born babies, children and adults along with the wanted fetuses and in the second group there are the unwanted fetuses. One must choose whom to save, either the born humans or the unwanted unborn fetuses.

The first and most important thing to remember is that there are more people dying than can be saved, that is the Law as it is stated. Because there are more than can be saved, one must choose whom to save. It does not matter if there are resources to save anyone or if the resources will be available to save anyone, all that matters is the choice of whom to save or whom to let die. Why, because if there are resources, each and every resource that can or will be available will be used to save those whom are born and those resources will still not be enough to save all born life. This is really a very obtuse thing for many people to understand. Most people will think that it is possible to get enough resources to save everyone. But that is impossible because everyone dies. And most people will think that they can save a certain number of one group and a certain number of the other group and that will satisfy the obligation to save those whom are already born. That is impossible because any attempt to choose to save a fetus is a choice not to save a born life. If one chooses to save a fetus, a born baby, child or adult or even a wanted fetus will die. So under no circumstance is life saved by choosing to save a fetus. All that is possible according to scientific law is for a born person to die in exchange for the life of a fetus.
http://naturalabortionlaws.com/?p=164

It is my duty to fully explain the laws as I see them. But I can assure you that you will not simply pick up the laws without some work on your part. The concepts are simply too difficult. If you are willing to ask specific questions that are on point, I can answer any question you can pose. So if you are interested and have the energy, ask a question. I suggest that before you ask any question that you go to my site http://www.scientificabortionlaw.com and read the about page. Then read the posts on the blog. Then you will have some understanding of what I am talking about.

I do appreciate your interest in the laws and your effort to understand.

 

You don't understand what is being said. So it will make no sense to you. You are dealing with concepts with details that took years to work out. You will not understand them easily.

Those are irrelevant facts.

No, what I am saying is that the pro life movement has a choice, they can save the one of 7 billion born people or they can save a fetus. If they save a born person they will be saving one of 7 billion lives. If they save a fetus it will be allowing one of 7 billion people to die. Your math is wrong.

No, I am saying that one should not kill born life to save fetuses.

You just don't know what you are reading. This is not something you can just pick up without thinking. If you don't study the issue you will never understand. Like string theory it is new and requires work for you to be able to understand.

 

Crawford, just about everyone here already has you pegged as a crackpot. Your "Law of Charity or the Theory of Choice" do NOT exist outside your warped, insane mind. You can scream "ad hominem" until the cows come home but that does not effect the fact that you are mentally disturbed and should be under the care of a professional.

Also, I've visited your pitiful little website and it makes NO sense to a SANE individual. Only to people who share your fantasy and delusion.

Your time here is totally wasted - you'll succeed in converting NO ONE with your garbage - so you might as well pack up and leave right now!

And good riddance to you!!!

 

There have been a large number of people that have visited this thread that claim to not understand what is being said. The most important thing for these people to remember is that these are new laws that took a great amount of time to develop. No person on this site can expect to understand what is being said quickly and without reading the laws and comments. So far few people understand the concepts involved. That is not a reflection on your intelligence, it is simply that you have not spent enough time learning the different concepts involved.
When any new law is introduced, there is a learning curve. People here have not progressed far enough along the curve to be proficient with the information that is presented.
I look forward to answering any questions that you may have regarding the laws. But I wouldn't blame anyone that chooses to leave without understanding. There is a lot to learn that is different from anything you have learned in the past.

To those who stay, thanks.
To those who choose to leave, I am sorry that I failed to make these laws easier to understand. I wish you well.

 

That is an ad hominem response that carries no weight at all. It was a waste of your time to post.

Another ad hominem comment. No meat whatsoever.

I have a question for you. You have a choice, you may save a born baby or you can let it die. Which do you choose to do. Or do you deny you have a choice?

Another wasted ad hominem.

Another wasted ad hominem.

Another ad hominem.

Another ad hominem.

Another ad hominem.

I am sorry I failed to express the laws on a level you can understand, that is my fault.

 

You are either mistaken or this is some kind of informal treatment of what we conventionally mean by a law. Is this by any chance a school science project? This is what I would call a controvertible proposition, not a law, unless you can offer something more to tune me in to your basis for saying it. I need only prove that the population is growing, for example. But it's probably in that realm of impossible things to prove one way or the other, certainly not without clarification. You would have to establish a few things: when is this true? At every instant of time? What constitutes being saved? Is every person taking prescribed meds "being saved"? How about the ones getting a rigorous daily workout and eating healthy? How about those benefiting from seat belts, anti-skid brakes, better tires and advances in roadway engineering, traffic engineering, etc.? And how about all the people who used to die from occupational injuries who now use protective gear, harnesses, safety and first aid stations, improved chemical safety, better labeling, better containers, quality control systems, and on and on. This is a pretty wide open throttle for covering a huge array of things that might constitute "being saved", once you specify exactly what you mean.

Maybe you meant to say "theorem" although I'm not sure exactly how that even applies to this, since it's really just another proposition. you would have to be more specific here as well. For example, is this an extension of the specific meaning of "being saved"? Are you for example referring to a very narrow resource-limited application, such as in a hypothetical problem from operations research or economics? In many of the examples I gave above, no person is being "denied" just because "one person is being saved". The seat belts in my car were installed by the factory, and no person is lacking seat belts simply because I have them. I can think of countless cases like this.

Since I have arguments against the premises leading to this conclusion I would have to say that it's unsupportable, at least without you saying more specifically what you mean by "being saved" as I've said above.

You left out the main group - people that are neither being born nor dying. And you left out the time interval over which this is happening.

How does this relate to 7 B above?
What you need to know is how this applies to the question of population explosion. You need an exponential function that predicts the growth of population as a function of time. You need two pieces that combine to produce that graph: the exponential birth rate, and the exponential death rate. Then show how three fit together.

That I would tend to dispute as I've explained above. All decisions of life over death are not conscious ones. People die in their sleep. They get run over, shot, exposed to fatal chemicals or microbes, and on and on. It would be very hard to connect the total number of fatalities -- even in a small city -- to the availability of resources during an emergency or chronic illness or injury. Therefore it's very hard to tell what you mean here by "choice". Who is doing the choosing, and what percent of deaths (and, more importantly, people "being saved") are affected?

Are they mutually exclusive or independent events? Is one coin flipped to choose the fate of two people, or does Nature flip the coin for each person -- independent of every other person -- at about the rate of -- say -- one flip per heartbeat (approx 1X/sec?)

You just got through offering a death rate of 1.8 per second. At that rate, how long will it take for 7 B people to die?

The next thing would be to determine the birth rate, which is going to be slightly larger. Without even trying to estimate it (we can do that several ways rather quickly) , I'll just throw a number out there: let's say there are 1.81 births per second. Using that number, we'd have to conclude that 0.01 people are "saved" per second. Or 1 person is saved every 100 seconds. You see why it's hard to agree with you?

No, a "born life" gets saved every time the parents feed it, every time they keep it warm, protect it from harm, and so on. And none of that affects (or is affected by) the rate of fetal death, which, besides abortion, happens routinely in the course of pregnancy regardless of whether the folks across the street are on their toes about their own child’s safety or not. If you ever get to take a class in probability theory, you'll learn what mutually exclusive and independent events are. A lot of the syllogisms you're propounding are being incorrectly cast as propositions that follow mutually exclusive premises when the nature that controls them is giving them independent statistics.

Those are independent events, so nobody dies just because a fetus lives, and, as I mentioned, the available resources to save lives are not single threaded. They are built-in to the world around us in a rich network which is quite resilient and capable of multithreading all kinds of supports that preserve life, not even necessarily bringing a human into the loop. Health and safety systems, people taking care of each other, medical resources, etc, are not single threaded like you're constructing them here.

That statement is not clear.

Not at all. The reverse is true. It’s very rare to have to choose one over the other. And choice in the matter is irrelevant unless you're talking about murder. At some point in each of our lives, no choices are in play at all. Normal death often entails the gradual crash of systems that simply can’t be stopped, or the cessation of some normal process quite suddenly (as a stroke or heart attack) which have no connection to any choices being made. As far as abortion is concerned, the average woman will choose to abort based on the rate of pregnancy, and based on whether that rate is above or below the average birth rate. (1.8/sec). I have no idea how widely the rate of pregnancy varies. You would not only need to estimate the rate of productive fertilizations, but also those that would be successful if not for contraception. Then you need to account for all forms of contraception. That's a formidable task. I don't think anyone could accurately process these sweeping general statements you're making. It would require vast amounts of highly tailored data sets that go way beyond present capacity of the average scale of technical research. In any case, you need to narrow down a lot of what you're saying.

No, because death is opportunistic. Look up some common causes of death and tell me which of them is caused by helping someone else live. The only cases I can think of are executions and murders -- those are done willfully. Show me one example of a person's death being caused by (What?) -- something -- being done to save a life. If you like, you can assume that my life has been saved X times by seat belts in Y cars over a period of Z years. Show me one scenario in which even one of the Y seat belts became a cause for someone else's death...

OK so you mean an expectant mother bringing a baby to full term can't deliver in the same maternity ward where a preemie is delivered, hooked up to a ventilator and treated against some common types of illness and injury preemies are susceptible to? I'd have to argue that those are independent events. It happens every day. It’s happening right now.

No, if there is any choice at all involved in saving them, the choice will be made to save them both. That's what hospitals are doing every 1.81 seconds or whatever the number is. (Plus we have to count the babies born out of hospitals. A few are born in vehicles on the way to hospital, but I guess we can neglect that number. They can have no relation to the rate of “saved fetuses” whatsoever, since they're not utilizing resources.)

Sorry again but there is no infinite set of humans. As you mentioned before, the population is around 7 billion, and though it's growing, it's never infinite. And the rest of your logic needs rework for the reasons I've already mentioned.

Give me one example of someone choosing to kill a baby after it's born. I have no idea what you're referring to.

How did we do that? Who did it? When/where did it happen? As I’m sure you know, once the baby’s head is in the birth canal, there’s usually no stopping it, and no one would dream of trying to stop it other than in some rare medical crisis. This is an automatic process, not something regulated by conscious decision at all. The decision was whether to have unprotected sex 9 months before, and then there was a second decision to bring the baby to term. But the rest is almost entirely automatic. And it’s entirely independent of a second woman’s decision to have an abortion. So this logic is missing the linking premise that leads to the conclusion.

That's absolutely the strangest statement I've yet encountered on this site . . . and there have been some pretty weird things said since I joined.

Huh? You’ve been saying this for two years? Dang, I could have helped you work through this in 5 minutes. You have some strange ideas about peer review. But I guess I get your point. You're of the opinion that after engaging folks on this for a long time, it has become more correct. However you're missing a vital step -- fixing the logic to produce the result, which is not the same as arguing the various points in a forum. That, for sure, is a matter of choice.

Fortunately for all of us who advocate for abortion rights, the pro-lifers don't choose whether we (or our children) live or die. The only ones I can think of are the few who bomb clinics. And that has nothing to do with the general logic you're putting forward. Murder is conscious, deliberated, but the choice of victim (esp a random attack) is often random/opportunistic. Moreso with accidental deaths.

That corroborates by earlier remark concerning the natural rate of failure to implant after conception. That number is believed to be around 70%. There again you see how life and death are opportunistic. No one is controlling this. No decision is involved.

I'll go with that, understanding that a few other things can go wrong besides genetic flaws, but I think that's a fair statement. I wasn't aware that pro-lifers were ever talking about all conceptions. I had assumed that many of them are aware of the natural rate of failure to implant, and that there are plenty of natural miscarriages/abortions that have less to do with the population rate than they do with the average number of fertilizations needed to produce one baby. And obviously the rate of protected sex has nothing to do with this; and the rate of unprotected sex is sometimes not exactly a matter of choice, but of failing to stop and take precautions because it detracts from the spontaneity of the moment, or someone forgot their pill, that kind of thing. That's some incalculable combination of planned and unplanned (and/or neglectful) parenthood.

I think your assumptions need a lot of work across the board. You have an impossible hill to climb trying to reduce all life and death cases to matters of choice. I can't imagine how you even came up with this.

Still, you are making a valiant effort to apply logic, if only in a formulaic way. But just remember: the logic also has to be valid. I think I'd have to judge this a no-go for the time being, but after a good overhaul it could at least be plausible. I have no idea what a fixed version of this would say. I have no idea what you actually believe and why you're posting this kind of logic. If you want we can try to make an enumerated list of premises leading to conclusions in order to help you find your mistakes of logic. That shouldn't be too difficult. That way I can point out the defects a little more clearly in case my posting style isn't helping you.

Also, just curious: what in the world even drove you to arrive at any of these conclusions? You remind me a little of another poster here who is a fundamentalist who would never try to argue against the pro-life folks, even by this unusual string of mistaken logic you're using. But he has a similar way of stringing things together that are not logically related, and then believing the result is correct.

 

Actually, it's quite simple - Crawford is a crank. (shrug)

 

Certainly, most people who set up websites dedicated to airing their own notions in guise of science are cranks. So that puts the onus on any who are not to convince others they are an exception.

A common misconception of all these types is that "educated" "scientists" are under a sort of moral obligation to take all ideas seriously, regardless of their origin, in order to show open-mindedness. But if that were true, we'd all be stuck listening to the rantings of every nutter on the street corner and would never get anything done at all. We all apply a filter in everyday life, and in science, to discriminate between people who are worth paying attention to and people who are not. Lucidity of thought and of expression are the often the first things that indicate there may be something of value being said. Absence of these qualities makes us move quickly on.

 

If I understand the original argument, charity could give to both anti-abortion or to live children, with less yield (saved children) per dollar fighting abortion. So why not put the money where it will do the most good and save the most; save living children.

The cost difference is connected to the choice of the mother not the normalized costs of each option. Few mothers choose to starve their children or give them medical problems. So mother is not an added cost. One the other hand, some mothers choose to kill the unborn and will hire legal guns to help. This will card variable is what is increasing the cost, not the unborn. If we got rid of the mother's choice, and therefore the cost she adds, the cost would go down for the unborn and the unborn would be cheaper and more cost effective to save.

As an analogy, what is easier to push, a one ton car or a two ton car? It is more cost effective to push the one ton car, unless we add a wild card variable, like a mother in the car applying the brakes to one ton car. It we get her out of the picture and focus on the needs of the children/car, the math becomes logical again and the unborn is the bets place to put charity.

The premise of the topic do not include all the variables, especially the mother driving up charity costs.