Committed 0.17% of manslaughter

Post Reply New Topic

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.

You might as well say that a baby should have no rights because it doesn't compare to an adult human.

Apparently the fact that it is in the process of turning into one shouldn't matter, and apparently it's fine to interfere with that process just because someone was stupid enough to conceive a child that they didn't want.

If no one is ever made to take responsibility for their own stupidity, people are just going to continue to get even more stupid.

A lot of times it isn't stupidity, it's failure of the birth control. Also, why should a woman deal with having a baby inside her body for forty weeks and putting her own health at risk because of a few minutes of a mistake? There is a simple and safe procedure than she can have done, which will remove it. Should pregnancy be punishment for the woman for having sex? Or revenge because she got laid??

I think abortion is immoral for the most part, but I think it has to remain legal, simply because the mother was here first, and the baby is in her body. First come, first serve. She is a sentient, functioning adult and the baby has only barely begun to form. The fact that it's inside her body is what gives her the right to make this choice.

Anyone with an ounce of sense can see that a 12 week old fetus is very different than a 40 week, or even a premature but viable, neonate.

The mothers right to abort should cease when the baby is old enough to survive outside the womb, or a few weeks before. In those instances, if she feels she must have it removed, then she should be able to wait until 32 weeks (or the lowest age of probably viability) and have a c/section performed. The baby's adoptive parents can pay for all the medical care for him.

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.

If she isn't prepared to take the risk of getting pregnant then she shouldn't be having sex in the first place. Yes, it is stupidity. Yes, it is her responsibility. No, the fact that she "made a mistake" does not change any of these facts, nor should it give her the right to end the life of another person.

Intentionally performing the reproductive act with no regard for the potential consequences is her own fault. Accidental failure of contraception is no excuse, everyone knows that is a risk of having sex, and anyone unprepared to take the responsibilities of reproducing shouldn't be doing it at all.

A person's life is more important than a person looking for cheap thrills and trying to ignore the responsibilities that come with them. No excuse you make in the name of irresponsibility will ever change the fact that that is what it is.

Sex appears on Maslow's hierarchy of human needs twice

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're in good company. You can't systemize and quantify something that is so subjective.

So as I understand it, women have the monopoly of stupidity?

And because someone was either very unlucky or very irresponsible, we should let go a state of things that makes everyone unhappy? Because the future baby will be raised in the worst possible conditions.

Besides, saying an embryo is a person is like saying an acorn is an oak tree.

New metaphor I heard recently: sex, like driving a car, is something that is pleasant and, for many of us, necessary in order to maintain our relationships. LIke driving a car, sex comes with risks. If you drive a car, you may get into a serious accident - usually fender-benders, sometimes life-threatening. If you have sex, you may cause a pregnancy. In both cases, there are precaustions you can take to prevent unwanted outcomes: wearing a seatbelt, wearing a rubber, anti-lock brakes, an IUD. In both cases, sometimes the precautions fail.

Now, why is it that when the precautions for sex fail, people think that it's somehow immoral to use the contingency plan of abortion? The contingency plan for a major car accident is the EMS and trauma surgery, but no one ever argues that we should leave accident victims bleeding by the side of the road 'because they were stupid enough to have an accident.'

It's not subjective at all.

If you argue that a cell that given the right circumstances could develop into a human has personhood, then you drown hundreds of thousands of potential humans every time you shower since every cell with a nucleus can become a human being if treated correctly. Now, you could try to counter this argument by saying something like "well, a zygote will develop naturally into a human regardless of circumstances" but if the mother gets punched in the stomach 8 times a day then it probably won't.

You can argue that it's personality based, but in that case the current permissible abortion range is fine since the zygote won't have developed the means for developing a personality or individuality at that point.

It's only subjective to people who aren't rational in regards to the topic, just like pretty much everything else.

We are told that beauty is subjective right? However, where my grandmother telling me I'm such a handsome lad is subjective, the number of women who have found me attractive is an objective statistical measure given a large enough sample size.

I'm aware that there's an objective way of measuring consciousness and all that. You need a neo-cortex to process pain and the brain is electrical and chemical etc.. etc...

But we're talking about personhood. That is subjective. Some people think that the fact that it is developing sentience grants it personhood while other thinks sentience as it is defines its personhood. Using the bundle of cells argument is a fallacy of composition. I'm composed of billions of cells. Since an individual cell is invisible, does that make me invisible?

I agree with you here. I hate that corny f*****g phrase so much. There isn't anywhere near as much room for variation as it makes it out to be. Simply because we don't choose what we're attracted to and we're wired to be attracted to specific traits. You might prefer blondies and I might prefer brunettes or maybe you're an ass man and I'm a tits man, but chances are we'd pretty much agree on who's hot and who's not.

A fetus doesn't have senses until its third trimester? Show me the evidence.

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?