Committed 0.17% of manslaughter

Post Reply New Topic

You want evidence that the neo-cortex is required to process sensory functions? There's a whole mountain of it. Do you also want evidence that anencephalics are blind, dumb, deaf, unable to feel emotions or sensations? There's a whole mountain of evidence for that too. The neo-cortex doesn't fully form until the third trimester. So where are you going with this?

This says 6.5 WEEKS. I knew 6.5 months sounded totally wrong.

I found one paper that refers to a rudimentary neocortex being present at 6.5 weeks: Reactive Invagination of the Neuroepithelium in the Rudiments of the Neocortex, Tectum of the Midbrain, and Retina of the Eye in Humans at Different Stages of Development, E. B. Smirnov, V. F. Puchkov and V. A. Otellin, Neuroscience and Behavioral Physiology Vol. 31 No. 6, Nov. 2001

The human brainstem is fashioned around the 7th week of gestation and matures in a caudal to rostral arc thereby forming the medulla, pons, and midbrain. The medulla mediates arousal, breathing, heart rate, and gross movement of the body and head, and medullary functions appear prior to those of the pons which precede those of the midbrain. Hence, by the 9th gestational week the fetus will display spontaneous movements, one week later takes its first breath

This says 6.5 WEEKS. I knew 6.5 months sounded totally wrong.

I found one paper that refers to a rudimentary neocortex being present at 6.5 weeks: Reactive Invagination of the Neuroepithelium in the Rudiments of the Neocortex, Tectum of the Midbrain, and Retina of the Eye in Humans at Different Stages of Development, E. B. Smirnov, V. F. Puchkov and V. A. Otellin, Neuroscience and Behavioral Physiology Vol. 31 No. 6, Nov. 2001

I got a new solution to the abortion debate! Fuzzy logic.

In classical set theory, an element x either belongs to a set or does not. In fuzzy set theory we can talk about the degrees by which something belongs to a set.

I think that no rational being would ever come up with an argument against the notion that personhood certainly and 100% surely does NOT begin at conception. It is simply an insult to the intelligence of anyone to believe that the single cell formed by an ovule and a sperm should somehow gain a person's rights. In that case, we can agree that at time t=0 seconds after conception, the thing is certainly not a person. Thus the [i]degree] of membership of a being to the person set at time t=0 is 0.00.

Thus we have U_person(t=0) = 0.00

It is a valid standard with full consensus that it is illegal to kill newborn babies. Thus we can all agree that when t=~ 9 months we can be certain that the fetus is a person with full set of rights.

U_person( t = 9 months ) = 1.00.

Now, here is where fuzzy logic comes into place, what to do about intermediary stages? We know that at 8 months a premature baby can still live with some support. At 7 months it is also true, but with a smaller chance of that happening. Let's say that at 7 months, a fetus is 75% times a person.

U_person( t = 7 months ) = 0.75.

We can now make a formula based on time : if (t >= 7 months and t <= 8 months ) the degree of membership is: 0.25 * (8 - t)/ 1.0 + 0.75 .

if (t >= 8.0 ) degree of membership = 1.0


Now, we know that at 6.5 months there are finally Thalamic connections to the brain. This means that senses are not even wired until that time. Just senses is by no means the same thing as a person. But we can consider it to be around midways, so let's say 40%.

if (t >= 6.5 months and t <= 7.0) degree of membership = 0.35 * (t - 6.5)/0.5 + 0.40
this way, at t = 6.5 months, the degree is 0.40 , yet at time t = 7.0 months, the degree is 0.75.

At sixth week, or 1.5 months, extremities begin to appear. It is very hard to consider a thing remotely close to a person before it even has differentiated members. But it is definitely closer to human than a just-fertilized egg. So, let us say it is 5% a person. We have:

if (t >= 1.5 months and t <= 6.5) degree of membership = 0.35 * (t - 1.5)/4.5 + 0.05

And later, we add:

if (t >= 0 and t <= 1.5) degree of membership = 0.05 * t/1.5

So, let's say what happens to a woman who aborts at the 3rd week (t = 0.05):

The degree of membership of the embryo is: 0.0016666666666666668 or 0.17% . So it was 0.17% a person

For a pregnancy that ends after 8 weeks, or 2 months, the degree is 0.088 or 8%. This would mean that abortion after 8 weeks is 8% of manslaughter. (not murder, it is not the same).

Can't argue with math. If I had time, I would make a graph showing how the function looks. If anyone can help would be nice.

Edit: * Do notice that at 7 months, things change and it is now 75% of manslaughter. The best conclusion to take is that the best to avoid killing something with a large percentage of personhood is to practice abortion as quickly as possible. It is only moral to be honest to anyone going through unwanted pregnancy and tell them that the best to avoid suffering is to make the abortion as quickly as possible. For this same reason, I think it is inhumane to push for laws that delay abortion for people that have already decided it.

Technological advances will continue to push the age of viability closer and closer to conception. One has to make an argument based on personhood.

I really wonder why lawmakers invest so much thought in this aspect of life, and so little on life after birth.

but no person has a right to another persons body and fact is that at conception it isnt a person, it is physically impossible.

so you want to dehumanize the mother, with consequences to follow,
that might lead to her feeling animosity towards her child, with consequences to follow,
so in the end you would rather see a child suffer than not exist and that is pure evil.

Consenting to sex is not consenting to pregnancy and childbirth. Sorry, it doesn't work like that. Even before there were birth control pills, sterilization, and legal abortion, there were herbs that women could use to cause an early miscarriage. There have always been ways that women could avoid giving birth when they wanted or needed to. The mothers body is here first, so it's first come, first serve.

Just because you, or a group of like minded people, want to punish a woman for having sex does not mean that it's right to do so, or that you can.

am i the only one who thinks trying to calculate personhood is kinda silly?

You want evidence that the neo-cortex is required to process sensory functions? There's a whole mountain of it. Do you also want evidence that anencephalics are blind, dumb, deaf, unable to feel emotions or sensations? There's a whole mountain of evidence for that too. The neo-cortex doesn't fully form until the third trimester. So where are you going with this?

Each sperm has to have something equivalent to a nerve center to wag it's tail, so if that part winds up in an ova, it has a brain. Issue solved and the age old myth of man having a brain in his pants is busted because he in fact has many!

You would rather end the possibility of someone's life than have a woman raise a child or give a child up for an adoption. What part of a woman having a baby is dehumanizing... now if you were to tie her tubes without giving her an on/off switch and some way to actuate it, that would dehumanize her. If you were to take a life that came from her, that insults her dignity as a person. Her children have a fundamental right to exist.

The problem with that argument isn't that a woman is being punished for having sex, it is that you view having a child as a punishment which it is not. So when you stop seeing children as a punishment, what are they?

Sex makes kids, everyone old enough to have sex knows that. Maybe we should stop teaching the stork... That silly animal seems to me to be behind this misunderstanding.

Each sperm has to have something equivalent to a nerve center to wag it's tail, so if that part winds up in an ova, it has a brain.

For Christ's sake, people, please stop making up biology when you don't know what the hell you're talking about! A SPERM IS A SINGLE CELL. A NERVOUS SYSTEM = TRILLIONS OF CELLS. Just because something can move, does not mean that it can think or feel.