Abortion is a thing. LET'S DEBATE ABOUT IT!

Mike

@whiteflame

Good question! When “does a human life begin?”

Through empirical observations, life begins for a given species at conception that defines a living separate entity of that species, or at pollination of a plant, which defines an entity of that plant, or at the moment of cellular replication when a cell becomes a separate entity.

Throughout the animate universe, the flow of life has a set of bio-primitives, for humans, known as Thomas Jefferson’s celebrated claim of “unalienable Rights” of “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” For life in general we may translate “unalienable Rights” to: all life, must have freedom within its domain, in the pursuit of survival; otherwise, there is no life.

In general, for both the animate and inanimate domains we refer to a law in thermodynamics known as the physical constructal law which states: “For a flow system to persist in time (to live), it must evolve freely such that it provides greater access to its currents.”  

The one-to-one mapping from Jefferson’s philosophy to the physical constructal law is obvious; a law found within the matrix of those physical laws creating life.  So the question becomes, when does human life begin? It would seem the scientific field solved the question, but I regret to say from empirical evidence, philosophy is in a state of confusion. The debate has digressed into a dialectic and not science. 

whiteflame

Mike said:

Through empirical observations, life begins for a given species at conception that defines a living separate entity of that species, or at pollination of a plant, which defines an entity of that plant, or at the moment of cellular replication when a cell becomes a separate entity.

I suppose I understand where you're going with this, but I'm a little lost on the logic. What "empirical observations" are you using as a means to determine that life begins as conception? Is it simply the creation of a separate entity that makes this the start of a new human life, and, if so, why doesn't the generation of a sperm or ovum count? There is something to be said about the generation of a distinct genome, but that makes the comparison to plants difficult, as they can self-pollinate, resulting in a genetically identical offspring.

I have some difficulty believing that the scientific field has solved this question, though I agree that the debate has become more of a dialectic than a scientific one. That's part of the reason I'm asking this question, though I feel it's at least partially a philosophical one.

Mike

@whiteflame
Thanks for your speedy response. From your reply, indicates you are familiar with a dialectic but I sense you are not familiar with the constructal law. The physical flow dealing with the process of conception is a reality; otherwise, there will be no life at our level of existence (from those building blocks of “sperm” and “ovum” in the creation of a human entity). And on that note, and to be on the same page of constructive dialog, I do recommend we continue this conversation after you become familiar with the constructal law; otherwise, our conversational relationship will simply morph into a random dialectic.

whiteflame

@Mike

Yes, it seems I'll have to understand constructal law to some degree to get your point, and it doesn't seem like a cursory glance at some materials I'm finding online will suffice. I'll read into it and get back to you when I feel like I understand your point a little better.

whiteflame

@Mike

I've done some reading on the subject, and while it's clarified Bejan's position, it has not clarified yours (and yes, I found a bunch of your posts on other websites that expand a bit on your initial argument). You're expanding pretty dramatically on his point, which is about system evolution. It doesn't define a starting point to that evolution, it just says that systems evolve in much the same way.

That's why I really don't get your point. What "empirical observations" are you using to define when life for a given species begins? 

The answer to that may be contained in your argument about the flow of life and bio-primitives, but I can't for the life of me understand where you're going with that. You relate it to the "unalienable Rights" that Thomas Jefferson presented, but again, that doesn't seem to address the question of a beginning, simply a view of how to treat all human life, which dodges the basic question of when that human life begins. If, as you say, "all life, must have freedom within its domain, in the pursuit of survival; otherwise, there is no life", then why don't we extend the exact same mentality to all human cells? Why is a zygote a special entity? 

Your response to me may also be the start of answering that question, but again, I feel it makes the same fundamental assumption. You argue that there's a "physical flow dealing with the process of conception". What I gather from that, and from the remainder of that line, is that the flow that you're talking about from Bejan's theory starts at conception, and that that is a starting point for the generation of a human life, and to treat it as anything else fundamentally damages our concept of what a human life is. But that argument contains the same basic assumption: there's a flow, it has to start somewhere, and you assert that it starts at conception. Why can't the flow start with the generation of the gametes that make up the zygote? What makes conception the fundamental starting point? I agree that it is A starting point, but your argument appears to be that it is THE starting point. Where is that assertion coming from?

Mike

@whiteflame

Thanks for doing some background on the constructal law.

The constructal law guides the freedom of flow towards the path of least resistance and states, “For a flow system to persist in time (to live), it must evolve freely such that it provides greater access to its currents.” As flow migrates along the path of least resistance, the outcome morphs the universe into configuration.

After the Big Bang, the flow from pure energy morphed into the elements found in the Periodic Table. Planets evolved from those elements and the ones with atmospheric and fluid bearing flow, formed treelike and vascularized patterns in their wake, the constructal law’s footprint.

On Earth, this morphing continued from inanimate to animate spawning vascularized, treelike patterns throughout the living universe, both inside and outside of us, similar to the hierarchical branching patterns found in the flow of traffic, social organization, communication, markets, and other human activities.  

The constructal law’s waste product is an increase in entropy, a form of disorder. A characteristic of flow implies direction; a lack of direction is a form of disorder incapable of generating configuration.

We are a product of the physical laws of nature and by the property of omnipotence, trapped within its matrix. The constructal flow of humanity through this matrix gave rise to philosophy, the taming of fire, the scientific method, having freedom to seek the path of least resistance in human evolution providing greater access to the pedagogic currents of nature.

Philosophical evolution or reformation, in part, is a function of scientific discovery. Scientific discovery is more akin to revolutions based on new paradigms according to Thomas Kuhn American historian and philosopher of science. Kuhn coined the term “paradigm” and defined the periods of; Aristotelian, Copernican, Newtonian, Darwinian, Einsteinian are some of the well-known scientific revolutions.

A revolution implies a short transition relative to the period of prior theories, however; the conservative nature of historical acceptance of new paradigms will filter through a repository of anecdotes to preserve the status quo. The new concept will not be forthcoming until historical issues are scrutinized in light of this new way of perceiving nature.

For example, historical issues relative to, and the acceptance of, evolution is still in the process of philosophical reformation throughout society since Darwin came on the scene in the mid-1800s. In light of this philosophical reformation in the evolution of the universe, my philosophy came to the point of accepting the beginning of a human entity is at conception. In addition, my understanding of the constructal law, where “unalienable Rights” is a version there of, applies to all life throughout the universe from a single living cell to humans.

Any new interpretation of nature, whether a discovery or a theory, emerges first in the mind of one or a few individuals; it is they who first learn to see the universe differently. And on that note, I wish you well in the evolution of your philosophy concerning the beginning of a human entity.     

whiteflame

@Mike

While I appreciate the detailed response, I don't think it is actually responsive to my questions. I understand that your "philosophy came to the point of accepting the beginning of a human entity is at conception", but the rest of this an establishment of where your view on constructal law takes you philosophically. Doubtless, your philosophical view is well-supported and detailed, but it doesn't seem particularly related to the issue of when human life begins. It's fine if this is where you want to end it, though it feels like we haven't really discussed the issue at hand, except possibly to say that it's up to each person's philosophical views.

Mike

@whiteflame

“… when human life begins … it’s up to each person’s philosophical views.”

Bingo! 

whiteflame

@Mike

Alright, we can leave it at that. 

someone234

Human life begins when trolls like us get one.

Chuz_Life

Fredsnephew said:

You're either a realist who accepts chance creation.
Or a conceptualist who accepts purposeful creation.
The former accepts, that above all else nothing really matters.
For the latter, everything has meaning.
As things stand, we have no evidence to validate either belief.

I have to ask. . .

What does any of that have to do with the abortion issue?