15-Year-Old Girl Faces Life in Prison for a Miscarriage?

reply to post by Maslo


No, science can tell me when a unique individual comes about from the creation of new DNA. Sentience is general, coming at different ages, mainly between 4-6. The baby is always viable until it is brain dead or causing death to the mother.

I don't believe in ethics or morality for that very reason. It's not scientific.

reply to post by Gorman91

No, science can tell me when a unique individual comes about from the creation of new DNA.

No, science tells you that a unique DNA appeared. It does not tell anything about when does unique individual appear, and certainly not what should be protected by laws. Thats is-ought fallacy.

Sentience is general, coming at different ages, mainly between 4-6.

Sentience appears before birth. You are mistaking it for sapience or something. Newborns are able to feel and do have emotions. Have you ever seen a newborn?

. The baby is always viable until it is brain dead or causing death to the mother.

Nope, viable=capable of surviving outside the uterus. Only late-term babies can survive outside of the uterus.

I don't believe in ethics or morality for that very reason. It's not scientific.

Thats funny, because your posts are full of ethical or moral statements about right and laws that are not supported by any science, and I have the feeling that you consider them some objective truth supported by science. That is not the case.

reply to post by Gorman91

The fact of the matter is that it being a pile of cells doesn't matter. The fact that it will become an adult does matter. And this is also why sperm and egg cells do not matter alone, or the cells you lose while walking down the street. They have no potential without action, and therefore have no point to protect. In their case, you have to physically act to take those cells, put them in a chemical collection of nutrients, and introduce stem cells for it to become an adult. It's merely inaction versus action and the results from both.

Why it should matter whether its passive or active act required for potential to fulfill? Thats illogical. Thats omission bias (judging harmful actions as worse as equally harmful inactions). If the fulfillment of the potential is what is important then it should not matter whether it requires active or passive action to fulfill. Just like stealing a cure or not providing cure while able to to terminally ill patient is both equivalent and should be treated the same, even when one is active (killing) and other is passive (refusing to save while able to) action or choice.

And in that case merely refusing unprotected sex, or not having sex 24/7 is murder - you have caused by your choice the potential which would be otherwise fulfilled to not fulfill - just like with abortion. The effect is the same.

Potential argument is illogical and leads to absurd conclusions like banning sexual abstinence if you want to not en up with logical contradictions. Only actuality is important in this case.

reply to post by Maslo


Deciding who is a person is just another trait of your already proven elitism in other threads. All entities with human dna and the potential to become an adult are people. End of story. You don't get some majority rule to say you are a person. You are a person because of your dna. Don't invent terms.

Feel and having emotions without any knowledge is just automatic responses to something they do not understand. subjective emotions come about when you know you can not listen to emotion. That comes later. That is sentience, the ability to have an opinion. To be subjective. You cannot be subjective without actual ability to speak for yourself. That comes later on. Cows have emotions. Pigs have emotions. Dogs have emotions. It doesn't make them sentient.

Even en Embryo can survive outside the uterus. It will quickly die within hours or minutes, but it does survive for a period to time. Survival is not the precedence to viability. For a new born let on a table will die within 3 days.

I already explained how scientifically rights exist. You skipped that part.

inaction is less wrong. You cannot blame a person for not getting involved in a fight between a rapist and his victim. He wants to survive. You can blame the rapist for actively pursuing to rape. he is actively doing it.


Scientifically, the fact that the person wants to save himself with the cure, or just sell it, is a survival mechanism for personal gain. it is less wrong than actively trying to kill someone. We apply our own opinion when saying it is equally wrong. From an unbiased scientific view, one person is gaining in this situation, so it is less wrong.

No not really with sex. You are actively preventing a birth that could happen. But it is inaction. Remember what I said before in the other thread? Preemptive versus postoperative? Acting after the life occurs is murder. Acting before the life occurs is not, because no life exists yet. The potential for that sperm and egg to live are null by your actions. In this case, action prevents life, inaction creates life. Where as with abortion, action stops a life, inaction allows a life. Two different issues.

Banning sexual abstinence is your own illogical conclusion from poor understanding of what I said. Adding the straw that it is illogical based off your opinion is null, because the straw you pulled it from was added by yourself, and was initially flawed to begin with.

A 15 year old girl gets pregnant. AND has a coc aine habit.

What does she expect? An award?

I'm not sure imprisonment is the best idea, but she sure need serious help. And not from her peers.

reply to post by Gorman91

All entities with human dna and the potential to become an adult are people. End of story. You don't get some majority rule to say you are a person. You are a person because of your dna. Don't invent terms.

I dont think so. I believe only sentient entities may be worthy of protection. I dont care about some chemicals on a string, and neither does science. Its your personal morality what cares. You are again commiting is-ought fallacy.

Cows have emotions. Pigs have emotions. Dogs have emotions. It doesn't make them sentient.

It indeed does. You obviously dont know what the word means. Those animals are of course sentient.

Even en Embryo can survive outside the uterus. It will quickly die within hours or minutes, but it does survive for a period to time. Survival is not the precedence to viability. For a new born let on a table will die within 3 days.

Survive (long-term) with appropiate care according to our medical knowledge at the time. Only late-term foetuses fullfill this definition. But I dont subscribe to this limit.

en.wikipedia.org...(fetal)

No not really with sex. You are actively preventing a birth that could happen. But it is inaction. Remember what I said before in the other thread? Preemptive versus postoperative? Acting after the life occurs is murder. Acting before the life occurs is not, because no life exists yet. The potential for that sperm and egg to live are null by your actions. In this case, action prevents life, inaction creates life. Where as with abortion, action stops a life, inaction allows a life. Two different issues.

That is the case if conception is your limit. You have yet to establish why this is the right time for human life to be protected.

reply to post by Maslo


Not really. Scientifically, those who care for their fellow man form more tight knit social bonds and survive longer, produce more, and succeed at evolution better. In this case, care is only logical.

If those animals are sentient, and mankind if sentient, then sentience is not worthy of protecting. Sapience is.

No, a late term fetus left to its own measures will die. A 4 year old left to its own means will die. A 10 year old left to its own means has a chance to live, but most will die. An 18 year old left to its own means will find food and water and probably not die. Therefore the ability to live on your own and survive is not a reason ok to kill it.

Conception is the limit because there is no life before that. The purpose of a sperm and egg is two things. Death or fertilization. If fertilization is not the choice of those whom have these cells and control them, then death is the other choice. The cell has no other purpose. It didn't evolve for any other purpose. An egg cell either is fertilized, or killed. A sperm cell either does the fertilizing, or is killed. These are the only reasons these cells exist. There is no other biological function. a fertilized egg has only one point of existence. To become an adult. It's biological function has no other function other than to become an adult. It's entire evolutionary goal is to become an adult, so that adult can do the same.

Therefore, conception is the limit, because the evolutionary function of the construction materials before it did not evolve to become an adult. Their purpose is fertilization, or death. Logically, the person has the choice to kill the cells then, or fertilize. Life, as a human being, begins then.

reply to post by Gorman91

Not really. Scientifically, those who care for their fellow man form more tight knit social bonds and survive longer, produce more, and succeed at evolution better. In this case, care is only logical.

That does not imply they should equally care for unsentient fetus, since if social bonds and better production is the reason for this evolved care for other humans, then its pointless to care for those incapable of forming social bonds or aid in production (embryos). In fact, forcing other fellow men to keep pregnancies they dont want would pretty harm social bonds and decrease production.

If those animals are sentient, and mankind if sentient, then sentience is not worthy of protecting. Sapience is.

No, sapience would mean you can harm all animals and young children. We dont harm children and we also have laws prohibiting animal abuse. This is because every sentience is worthy of protection. Thats the basic criterion and prerequisite for having rights. When it is present, then we can use other critetions to determine what level of protection it will be, since we are still speciecist. But when its not present then discussion about rights becomes meaningless and void.

Conception is the limit because there is no life before that. The purpose of a sperm and egg is two things. Death or fertilization. If fertilization is not the choice of those whom have these cells and control them, then death is the other choice. The cell has no other purpose. It didn't evolve for any other purpose. An egg cell either is fertilized, or killed. A sperm cell either does the fertilizing, or is killed. These are the only reasons these cells exist. There is no other biological function. a fertilized egg has only one point of existence. To become an adult. It's biological function has no other function other than to become an adult. It's entire evolutionary goal is to become an adult, so that adult can do the same.

Is-ought fallacy or fact-value distinction. You are trying to derive "ought" (moral rules or laws) from "is". Just because gametic cells are capable of fertilisation or death does not mean we as humans should use them for it. If we find other use for them (such as ESC therapy) we can use them for it, even when they were never intended for such usage in evolution.
The same with fertilised cells - just because they turn into full humans when left alone (and even for that they require womans body), why should we allow them if we dont want to? Why should we protect this ability of them with laws? This leap from "is" or "fact" to "ought" or "value" is what you have never provided.

Life, as a human being, begins then.

Why should we protect human life? But you have not provided any good reason to break this fact-value distinction in your ideology. Because we evolved to care for other humans because it strenghtens social bonds is not enough, because we evolved only to care for other sentient humans (and sentient animals a bit too) because only they are capable of social bonds. In the past people killed children even to 2 years old. Caring about embryos is unnatural.

I have my reasons why its otfen necessary to protect human life and also why sometimes not - we evolved to protect sentience - when protecting sentience requires protecting life, we must protect life. When protecting life is not demanded by our evolved instinct to protect sentience, life doesnt have to be protected. If in the future protecting sentience would not demand protecting life (for example transhumanist mind upload into computers), we wont need to protect it no more. We will protect computers with the sentience.

No, a late term fetus left to its own measures will die. A 4 year old left to its own means will die. A 10 year old left to its own means has a chance to live, but most will die. An 18 year old left to its own means will find food and water and probably not die. Therefore the ability to live on your own and survive is not a reason ok to kill it.

I agree. I dont subsribe to dependence criterion.

reply to post by Maslo


I doubt that. If anything it allows them to see the value of life, seeing as so many in this generation are more than happy to have an abortion because its an inconvenient, when if anything, it should be an emergency for rape victims and fatal pregnancies. Of course, that's an opinion and now legal tenure for laws. See I wasn't talking about pregnancies to begin with for that point. I was talking about how caring isn't morality, but in fact the result of increased species viability. In addition, I don't see lack of care for that which cannot understand it as legal reason to justify its murder. In anything not human, that would be called animal abuse because you are killing for the sake of inconvenience.

No, judging based off sapience would mean you shouldn't judge it at all from that stand point, but rather from its potential. And from my observations, laws against animal abuse are not for sentience. It's because people who start plucking wings off flies eventually start moving up the the evolutionary scale and eventually start plucking fingers off humans. It's a path that usually leads to much more evils down the road. Tis better to stop it before it starts. For example, when I was a kid I started burning flies in the house. Then I wondered what happened if I don't fully burn them, and then starting taking them apart alive. Eventually I thought "What the f*** am I doing?" And realized then why animal abuse is bad. It inevitably leads to analysis of larger and more complex organisms. I can attest to feeling a sense of pleasure from experimenting and testing what happens to the subject under different grotesque conditions, under the suffering of the insect subjects. That was what made me realize it was wrong. I was feeling pleasure at the suffering of half-dead suffering wasps and flies. I realized that was a path most disturbing, and stopped there.

Therefore, judgement based off sentience and sapience is illogical. Because it dehumanizes that which is essentially human and will become an adult. Simple fact is this. A baby born is an automatic response mechanism. It laughs, cries, and that is it. From there all other emotions are derived. You can't betray a baby. It doesn't understand betrayal. You cannot cheat a baby, it just wants everything around it. A child has no subjection, has no objection. It simple does. It pees, it poos, with no restraint. It looks at a woman's breast with no thought of sexual appeal, just food. It eats, poops, giggles, cries, and does nothing else.

For all intensive purposes, a baby is not human. It is not a person, it is not a being. It deserves no protection, for it cannot change the world, it cannot contribute to the species, it cannot do anything. And that, most importantly, is why it is not sentient. Why sentience, and sapience, is not legal tenure for rights.

Human life, too, is not worthy of protection as it is now. It deserves no right to life, for it has no respect for life. it deserves no care, for it shows no care. It deserves nothing but death.

That is why, of most clear logical thinking, why potential is the only thing that matters. The fact that we can one day be better. Not because of who we are now. But because of who we can become tomorrow.

As above, so bellow. A fertilized human egg deserves the same protection as the president of america, because it has the same potential to become the same.

Of course, that's an opinion and now legal tenure for laws

*not*, not now.

Woops, and 4 hour edit up.

reply to post by dethduck


But the alleged crime occurred when she was 15..

So, just to clarify. Is it now justifiable to get around age restrictions by simply waiting until someone is an adult?

IMO if someone commits a crime while 15, and you want to try them.. then one should be tried as a 15 year old regardless of the age.

reply to post by Gorman91


All right. Just be aware that this view of yours is not supported by any science or logic anymore than opinions of other people. It is just your personal moral opinion, one that I and many others disagree with.

I have made my own assumption, that sentience is a prerequisite for any rights, and it is the ultimate source of any rights. It is what ethically separates a rock from an animal or a human being. This ethical assumption of mine is not supported by science, because science CANNOT tell us right from wrong. It can tell us consequences for our choices, it can tell us facts, but right from wrong is not a realm of science. Only when this subjective assumption is made, it can tell us lots about the moral system derived from it and what its consequences would be.

You have made your own assumptions based on your subjective feelings. These are also not supported by any science or infallible logic, and I consider them quite strange and ultimately wrong.

Originally posted by Miraj
reply to post by dethduck

 

But the alleged crime occurred when she was 15..

So, just to clarify. Is it now justifiable to get around age restrictions by simply waiting until someone is an adult?

IMO if someone commits a crime while 15, and you want to try them.. then one should be tried as a 15 year old regardless of the age.

I was giving no opinion on this matter (which I'm not touching with a ten foot pole), I was merely trying to clarify facts that were being misrepresented right from the title of the thread on. She was not tried as a 15 year old, despite the implication of the title.

She was tried, right or wrong, five years after the fact.
It sparks a whole different set of outrage between imprisoning a 15 year old and a 20 year old.

This is part of what "Deny Ignorance" means.

You got to love the Conservatives fighting for the right to life for the unborn while simultaneously approving of wars that kill innocent civilians half a world away.
How can anyone be anti-abortion and pro-war?
Right to life? Really?....

This is a truly sad story. The girl has suffered through a miscarried pregnancy and now the state is making her suffer through a miscarriage of justice.

Aren't there some real criminals that need prosecuting? (like in DC perhaps?)

And since this is all about the rights of children IMO at 15 she was still a child, incapable of fully realizing the after effects of taking coc aine or whatever else that may have endangered the fetus.
Charging children of younger and younger age is another creepy sign of where society is headed, Not even children are innocent anymore according to THE LAW.

Double post

reply to post by Maslo


Sentience doesn't separate a man from an animal. Sapience does.

That is a fact. That is testable.

If it can be tested, it is science.

I already said how scientific processes can define what is good and bad without morality, religion, or culture. The methods of choice that leads to maximums of Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness without overlaps to each other.

reply to post by Gorman91

Sentience doesn't separate a man from an animal. Sapience does.

That is a fact. That is testable.

If it can be tested, it is science.

I agree. Sentience separates those things that have no rights (a rock or human embryo) from those things that have some rights (human beings, animals, eventualy aliens, computer AIs etc.). These rights are also in real world further warped by specieism and practical considerations.

I already said how scientific processes can define what is good and bad without morality, religion, or culture. The methods of choice that leads to maximums of Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness without overlaps to each other.

No, you have not. You have only stated your personal opinion. Science does not speak anything about what is good and bad, period.

reply to post by Maslo


But you see what you did there. You said human embryo, and human adult, but you did not say the in between.

You have to violate your own belief to protect a new born. Which I have made quite clear is not sentient under the definition.

You claim it doesn't say what's good or bad, but you haven't actually said why. hmm.

reply to post by Gorman91

You have to violate your own belief to protect a new born. Which I have made quite clear is not sentient under the definition. But you see what you did there. You said human embryo, and human adult, but you did not say the in between.

A newborn is sentient, therefore it has rights. I dont see the issue.

You claim it doesn't say what's good or bad, but you haven't actually said why. hmm.

Because there good and bad is not even defined in science, it is completely out of its realm. When you personally subjectively define good and bad according to something that is reflected in material reality, then you can use science and logic to explore your newly created moral system and its implications.

I can define that good is green and bad is red, then construct a moral system around this with the help of science and logic. But whether my personal definition is right or wrong is not in the realm of science, period. Morals are relative.

reply to post by Maslo


You have yet to prove how it is sentient.

Sentience is the ability to feel, or perceive, or be conscious, or have subjective experiences.

Can a baby do this? Can a baby just born an hour prior look at a piece of art and feel? Can it even perceive someone as anything but a food machine.

Consciousness is

subjective experience; awareness; the ability to experience feelings; wakefulness; having a sense of selfhood; or as the executive control system of the mind.

I don't think a baby controls its mind. I don't think it has much awareness of self, as a baby just kind of pokes at a mirror. Isn't until a bit later down the road they realize the mirror is themselves. I don't think they're subjective because they've not had the ability to perceive an alternative to automatic responses from emotion.

Can you prove they are sentient?



Your example has you step in and say what is good and bad. I let testable results show what is good and bad, and then chose them. I ask you again, is good and bad testable?

I told you already, there is objective good and bad, and subjective good and bad, and they do, often, overlap.