No set of traits can draw sharp boundaries that fit all analyses. E.g. if humans have 46 chromosomes, then men with XYY syndrome don't fit; evolutionary history: there's no sharp boundaries in species' emergence. — Relativist

This is simple to resolve. Instead of just two categories (man vs. woman or person vs. non-person), there could be three or more. Transitions between extremes would be a separate category. For instance, we don't say that black and white are the only colors. We recognize that there are many colors, not just two and the other colors are the transition between black and white (no colors vs. all colors).

That said, for most cases of criminal law, it's not problematic- there's no confusion or disagreement, no sorties fallacy. But there IS disagreement in terms of fetal development, and the problem isn't solvable by creating a definition. But that is exactly what anti-abortion advocates try to do. It's not fair for me to insist they drop their religion-based belief that a zygote is a human being with a soul, but neither should they force their view on others - particularly on those who may suffer. We should all accept there's disagreement that is honest and sincere in terms of identifying some point in fetal development as a dividing line. — Relativist

Then the question is who suffers more and who has the power to prevent the greater suffering in using contraception instead of relying on abortion as the only option to prevent a birth? I don't see anything wrong with using a morning-after pill to abort a pregnancy because I don't see a zygote as a something that can be self-aware or suffer. The longer you wait, the more it becomes an issue. The only reason I can see for having a late-term abortion is because the woman's life is in danger.

That door is always open, unfortunately, and the risks aren't eliminated by pointing the evil-doers at a lexicon. — Relativist

Sure it is. The prosecutors read the statute that the offender has broken, and people are put in jail because of some words on some court documents. I think that the words of a statute prevent some people from doing evil things. For some the words don't matter as they will respect others or not regardless of what some law states. I'm interested in talking to those that can do the "right" thing even when not threatened with prison. Are you one of those people?

For vegans, yes. They are fine with killing plants for food, but not pigs, chickens and cows because they point to suffering, not necessarily personhood, as the reason to not kill some organism. — Harry Hindu

Facile anthropomorphism. Now Jains (re: ahimsa + fasting), at least, are 'consistent'. — 180 Proof

But that is what I'm asking, 180. At what point are we merely projecting human qualities onto objects vs. those qualities actually existing independent of our projecting them?

Even then it's a matter of degree. An adult with congenital insensitivity to pain, a foetus at 24 weeks old, and cockroaches aren't capable of suffering in the same way that I am. At what "strength" does it become an ethical concern? — Michael

Physical pain isn't the only type of suffering. I would imagine that the adult with congenital insensitivity to pain would still suffer from mental anguish of realizing that they could seriously injure themselves and not even know it.

24 week old fetuses and cockroaches don't have a concept of time, much less even a realist concept of an external world (object permanence), so they couldn't experience the mental anguish of some event in the future causing them harm. They would only exist in the present. I would also argue that a 24 week fetus's brain is much different than an adult cockroach. I think that the reactions of cockroaches to injury are instinctive in that there is no conscious awareness of this pain. So the question is at what point does a particular brain create a sensory-feedback loop of self-awareness.

There's no point where it "becomes" killing. As I've said before, there is no point where something that wasn't alive "becomes" alive; it's all a matter of degree. Like personhood, life isn't some binary state that something either has or doesn't have. — Michael

Then there are no extremes. You described both extremes as one being a person and one not being a person. If that isn't binary, then what is it?

Again, we can narrow down the transitionary period between not-person and person to the point where the time in between the two binary states is short enough to not make much of a difference.

No I don't. I just think he happens to be right. — Michael

Which is to say that you think that his words are infallible. Many people think Jesus was right. What is the difference?

Personhood, life, being a game -- none of these are some intrinsic property that things either have or don't have. The world is a chaotic place, and to help us navigate it we start using words like "person", "life", and "game". But such use isn't dictated by some strict formal system of logic; it's often imprecise and inconsistent. That's just the reality of language. — Michael

Yet you laid out the argument for the existence of extremes. How can extremes even exist if there aren't intrinsic properties that make one a person and one not a person. You keep conflating the transitionary period with the extremes. Is the world a chaotic place or is it orderly, or somewhere in between? You keep proving Witt wrong every time you make an argument for what is the case - as in the world is chaotic, and what Witt said, which means that you have no issues with understanding what Witt is vs. what Witt is not.

Pro-choicers please kindly inform pro-lifers that choice is so important to God's vision of humanity that he permits the most horrific atrocities to be committed (re free will & the problem of evil)! — Agent Smith

Being pro-life isn't necessarily religious. Maybe it's more of a pro-personhood, in that one can respect the rights of another person. The question is, what makes one a person that deserves these rights? And we don't even have to bring a government into this. God and government are irrelevant here. What type of rights do you, as an individual, recognize that other persons have? At what point do you, as an individual, recognize that a thing either deserves those rights and doesn't deserve those rights? At what point in your own development would you want others to recognize those rights for you?

You'd have to define "suffering."

Does suffering require a sense of self? If it's just the firing of nociceptors, then earth worms can suffer. — frank

Sure, I think suffering is the awareness of your own pain. I think there are animals, like earth worms, that don't possess that awareness. Their behaviors of running from the source of pain is instinctual. There is no "what it is like" for an earth worm, at least not in the way there is for a human. It's not just having a brain, but having a particular type of brain.

It means we construct useful categories, nothing more. — Banno

What does it mean to be useful if not that it carries some element of truth (as in what is the case)? All of your statements are about what is the case. Either we construct useful categories or we don't. You can use scribbles, "we", to refer to we. Are we just more scribbles, or are you using scribbles to refer to things that are not scribbles, like a group of humans?

Reason, while misusable and in some respects is inadequate for adapting to reality, works better – more reliably, more defeasibly – than all of the alternatives.
— 180 Proof — Harry Hindu

Yes. And there must be a reason for this. — Harry Hindu

More than that it works – why? — 180 Proof

You tell me. What makes something work vs. not work, or more reliable vs less reliable?

Substance? Sorry! File not found! — Agent Smith

:grin: Yes! Words are like variables in a computer language. They need to be defined to be used in the program. If not, then they can't be used until they are defined.

True, information isn't a substance like, for instance, clay or paper is. If it were matter, my pen drive should gain weight as I continually save files on it. No! Is information energy? Can I perform work with information? How many joules (of energy) is 8 bits of information? Beats me! — Agent Smith

Uh... wait. If there is no "file found" when using the scribble, "substance", then asserting that "information isn't a substance like..." would produce an error just the same. It seems that you would avoid using the term, "substance" altogether because it hasn't been defined.

Weight is information as in the relationship between an object's mass and the gravitational pull of the Earth. The information has no weight. Weight is the information.

Information is first and foremost structured. A pile of rocks is just a pile of rocks, but the same pile laid out to spell ‘this is a pile of rocks’ in structured by the act of laying it out, and is no longer just a pile of rocks. It conveys information — Wayfarer

A pile of rocks contains information in that the pile of rocks is the effect of some prior causes, just as re-arranging them is another cause and their new arrangement is the new effect - meaning that both are just different information - meaning that different causal processes went into creating them. Information is the relationship between cause and effect. There must be some reason as to how the pile of rocks got there for you to observe, just as there is a reason how the pile of rocks spells out, "this is a pile of rocks". The relationship between how the rocks are arranged and what caused that arrangement is information.

Poets should be arrested and put away for a million years...for rule-breaking at such scales and severity. Wouldn't you agree? Where's the language police when we need 'em? — Agent Smith

That's the difference between drawing a picture of an actual event and drawing a picture of a meaningless design. Both are pictures, but only one actually represents something. With one you can show others what was the case. With the other you hang on your wall to show others that you that you have enough resources to waste on trivial things, just like many philosophers have enough time on their hands, thanks to not having to worry about where their next meal is coming from or evading predators, to make art from words. There's a difference between being meaningful with words and being artful with words. Ask Banno and he thinks every use of words is an artful use, as in every use is a game.

We can say (language) things we cannot mean (logic). For instance: The apple is all red AND The apple is not all red! There, I said/wrote a frank contradiction but when I attempt to think it, I draw a complete blank (Zen koans, mushin no shin). — Agent Smith

Because you said one thing and then negated it with the second statement. Each statement on it's own means something, but both statements together mean nothing. Think of not saying anything as the state of 0. Saying something is a positive assertion, therefore 0+1 = 1. Negating what you just said is basically subtracting from what you just said, essentially 1-1=0, so you ended up not saying anything at all. You say something with the first statement and then negate what you said in the second. Your mind only draws a blank after the second statement.

You essentially made a string of meaningless scribbles. What makes a scribble a word and not just a scribble? It is that the scribbles refer to what is the case. If you haven't referred to what is the case, then you essentially have just drawn scribbles on the screen, and didn't say anything at all.

Note that each assertion on their own are both positive assertions. You are asserting what is the case, either the apple is all red or it isn't. By using the second sentence, you negate what you just said. There would be no contradiction if both statements didn't share something in common, as in talking about the same apple and the same color, "red" in that is red or it isn't. There is no contradiction if you are talking about different apples in each sentence, or if you are talking about different colors in each statement. The apple is all red, and the apple is not all green are not contradictions.

In other words, what our our reasons for trusting reason? — Paulm12

For one, you wouldn't be able to communicate if not for reason. Using language is an endeavor in reason.

Reason, while misusable and in some respects is inadequate for adapting to reality, works better – more reliably, more defeasibly – than all of the alternatives. — 180 Proof

Yes. And there must be a reason for this.

You won't know until you try.

"Murder" is a legal term, so it comes murder if the law declares it to be murder. — Michael

Would it be better if I used the term, "kill"?

Because you seem to think that there is some set of necessary and sufficient conditions that qualify a thing as a person, but as Wittgenstein argued, this is a mistake. Instead, we just use the word "person" to refer to things that fit within a (vague) family resemblance, and that there are some things that clearly fit the use and some things that clearly don't, and then other things that sit within a grey area. — Michael

And you seem to think that Witt is a prophet of some sort whose words are infallible. You don't seem to have a problem discerning what Witt said vs. what Witt did not say.

It seems to me that maybe the issue is using the distinction between "person" and "non-person" is the issue. What if we were to point to "capable of suffering" vs "not capable of suffering" as the distinction?

Are you arguing that abortion is always wrong? — frank

Nope. Go back and read my first post in this thread.

What's the connection between our definition of "person" and whether or not abortion is OK? I didn't realise that how we use words is the measure of morality, — Michael

So when does abortion become murder if not by the way we define "person"?

I don't know what you mean here either. All I've said is that there is a very clear difference between a fertilised egg and a healthy adult. — Michael

Then I don't understand why you brought Wittgenstein into this discussion.

but then there are cases where there's no clear answer (and by this I don't just mean that we don't know which it is, but that there isn't a definite fact of the matter). — Michael

Yet you're saying that there is a clear-cut case between what is discernable vs. indiscernible.

Does "healthy adult" include other species other than humans?
— Harry Hindu

Possibly, if they're intelligent enough. I would think some advanced extra-terrestrial life would quality as persons. But dogs probably aren't (even if they're more intelligent and more self-aware than a newborn baby). — Michael

Then intelligence is another defining factor?

We put people in jail for animal abuse. It's okay to abuse a pig on a farm, but not a dog? Pigs are actually more intelligent than dogs. What about dolphins or apes?

Again, see Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations re. what is a game. If you're looking for some set of necessary and sufficient conditions for something to qualify as a person then you're approaching the issue the wrong way. That's just not how things work in many cases. There are extremes where it's easy to say what is or isn't a person (a healthy adult is, a sperm isn't) and where it's easy to say what is or isn't a game (chess is, clouds aren't), but then there are cases where there's no clear answer (and by this I don't just mean that we don't know which it is, but that there isn't a definite fact of the matter). — Michael

Yet, those cases where it seems to be difficult to say one way or another are rare compared to the all the cases where it is easy to say. Depending on how we define "person" vs. "non-person" the transition between the two can be very brief or very long. What we are trying to do is narrow that window of transition. By doing this and then by giving the benefit of the doubt to the fetus during this transition, we only end up adding a small amount of time to when it is not okay to abort a life.

A healthy fetus in the third trimester has lungs. Is there anything else?
— Harry Hindu

There are thousands of differences between an ovum and an adult human. I'm not going to list them all, and I don't understand the purpose of doing so. — Michael

But I wasn't talking about an ovum. I was talking about a fetus in the third trimester.

There are many differences; a healthy adult has lungs and a fertilised egg doesn't, a fertilised egg is about 100 microns in diameter and a healthy adult is quite a lot larger. — Michael

Okay. Now we're moving the conversation forward!

A healthy fetus in the third trimester has lungs. Is there anything else?

Does "healthy adult" include other species other than humans?

No I didn't. I offered a healthy adult as an example of a person. — Michael

You didn't say it was an example until now. Have any other examples? And after you give those examples, provide the traits that they share that qualifies them as a person.

So the victims of school shootings were not people?
— Harry Hindu

No, how did you some to that conclusion? — Michael

I would say the two extremes are a newly fertilised egg (not a person) and a healthy adult (a person). A 24 week old foetus and someone in a vegetative state might be somewhere in between. — Michael

You defined a person as a "healthy adult". Does this also mean that an adult with cancer is not a person?

Yes, there's a difference between a fertilised egg and a healthy adult. — Michael

You're repeating yourself. What are those differences?

I think a 24 week infant has about a 7% chance of survival even with high tech care. At 20 weeks, there's really no chance. — frank

How is that any different than what I said? If the preemie baby outside the womb still requires care to survive, how is that any different than the care they receive inside the womb?

Whatever you eat must be "killed" either before or during eating it. "Ethical problem"? — 180 Proof

For vegans, yes. They are fine with killing plants for food, but not pigs, chickens and cows because they point to suffering, not necessarily personhood, as the reason to not kill some organism.

What we do is declare that some time before the 20th week when the AC membrane in the lungs is too thick to function, the thingy is not a person. Somewhere around 25 weeks the membrane will work and the thingy can live outside the womb. — frank

What do you mean, "live outside the womb"? Newborns cannot live out side the womb for long on their own. They are still very much dependent on their mother for their survival. If the umbilical cord was severed inside the womb the fetus would survive about as long as if it were outside the womb and abandoned by it's mother. So why do we consider it murder if a mother abandons her newborn in a dumpster after being born?

I would say the two extremes are a newly fertilised egg (not a person) and a healthy adult (a person). A 24 week old foetus and someone in a vegetative state might be somewhere in between. — Michael

So the victims of school shootings were not people?

To even say that there are two extremes means that there must be a distinction between them, or else the extremes aren't extremes at all.

In some legal respects, a corporation is a person. What would need defining is: individual human person., but the fundamental problem is that it's a fuzzy concept - agreement on some specific set of traits would be virtually impossible. For example, I'd argue that a zygote clearly isn't an individual human person, because a zygote is a cell that can produce more than one person (monozyogtic twins, triplets, quadrupelets...), whereas many Christians disagree (a zygote has a soul; if it divides - God tosses in another soul...). So...it seems to me, it's all a matter of opinion, and it's inappropriate to force your opinion upon others. — Relativist

Yet we do force our opinion upon others by having laws that put you in jail if you kill people.

Asserting that there is no objective means of defining a person opens the door for anyone to define it how they want, and then use their own definitions to then kill and enslave others that they do not define as a "person".

It seems that most people here aren't even willing to give it a try, yet their behavior in other threads when it comes to discussions on the treatment of others and respecting the "identities" they assert seems to indicate that they have what defines a person all figured out and then try to impose that view on others.

I'm trying to make it easy by starting off with traits that we know make a thing a person. In talking about extremes, you are admitting that there are easily discernable traits that make one a person vs. not a person. If not, then the use of the term, "extremes", is meaningless.

Fine, then let's go back to the question you're trying to avoid:

Are you a person? How do you know? — Harry Hindu

If you can't explain why you are a person then what is wrong with aborting you? I'm not interested in bringing morality into it. I just want to know what traits a thing possesses that would qualify it as a person.

Can you point to something that has an equal number of properties of personhood and not-personhood?
— Harry Hindu

I don't understand this question. — Michael

Let's say that there are 5 traits that define a thing as a person. If a thing has two or less of these traits, then that thing does not qualify as a person, three or more it does.

Let's say that instead of 5 traits, there are 6 traits. We now have an even number of traits, so it stands to reason that it is possible for some things to have three of these traits. I'm asking what that thing would look like, or if there are any examples of such a thing.

I'm aware that we would first have to agree on the traits and the number that define a thing as a person, and that would be our starting point, but for now I'm simply contemplating the possibilities.

We can see that at one extreme it's not a living person and at another extreme it is a living person, but in between it's just a matter of degree. — Michael

The question is whether the extreme of being a living person begins before or after birth.

Not much of a paradox when you are making a distinction between distinguishable and indistinguishable, nor does it answer any of my questions.


What about the potential of personhood? Does that matter?

And this is probably why the debate continues. There's no clear cut way to determine when a fetus becomes a person. — frank

Then what use is the term, "person" if there is no way to determine what it is? Are you a person? How do you know? Can you point to something that has an equal number of properties of personhood and not-personhood?

Only if the implication is obvious, which it often isn’t in this discussion. So with the unicorn, it’s not implied. One often has to be explicit such as when you ask if the earth and moon exist without humans which explicitly excludes the implied reference of ‘relative to that which asked the question’. — noAxioms

We are talking about your proposition that "X exists" is a relation. What are the components of this relation if not X and the one making the statement about X existing? There is also the relation between some scribbles and the state-of-affairs it represents ,as in " "X exists" is a relation". I'm assuming that you are using scribbles to refer to a state-of-affairs (like "X exists" is a relation) and that state-of-affairs you are referring to is not more scribbles.

Yea, but then one gets careless and says something like “I exist” which is tautologically meaningless (per Rovelli). My ontology is pretty straight-up Rovelli’s relational view, so most of what I’m repeatedly explaining is that. — noAxioms

Why would "I exist" be any different than "X exist"? You said that "X exists in relation to me". What does the scribble, "X exists in relation to me" refer to, or are you just making scribbles on the screen that don't refer to anything (in other words you aren't saying anything at all)? Are you trying to communicate a truth of reality - something that is true whether I am aware of or agree with it or not? What is your intent in putting these scribble on this screen if not to communicate some state-of-affairs, or some truth about reality?

It isn’t in relation to you, at least not in the Y-measures-X sort of relation. Both you and the unicorn measure Steve (the stegosaurus, remember him?), so you’re related to each other (a bi-directional relation) in that sense. Bryce DeWitt (coiner of term ‘MWI’) would have said that you and the unicorn exist on Earth in separate worlds with Steve being in the common history of both, neither existence being more preferred than the other, but MWI doesn’t define existence as a function of measurement. Only collapse interpretations do. — noAxioms

What is the difference between the relations between Steve and the unicorn and me and the unicorn? I have no idea what you are talking about when you say that the unicorn and I exist on Earth in separate worlds. Are "collapse interpretations" a state-of-affairs? If not, then what are you referring to when you use the scribbles, "collapse interpretations"?

Well, language references concepts, and thus it’s about the concept’s relation to some physical entity or not. I mean, I might talk about how a lion takes down its prey, but I’ve not identified a specific lion, so the comment pretty much associates the word ‘lion’ with the lion concept and little more. — noAxioms

I depends on what you intend to communicate. You couldn't talk about how a lion takes down its prey without watching a specific lion. If you haven't seen a specific lion take down its prey and are just going by what you have heard, is what you heard or read about a specific lion or an abstract one? How do you know how a lion takes down its prey? If abstract lions have no relation with specific lions, then what leads you to make statements about how lions take down their prey? What are you actually saying, or talking about? What is it that you want me to know or understand when reading your scribbles? Do you want me to know what specific lions do or what abstract lions do?

Sure, why not? The name refers to a concept, and like the distant star, doesn’t correspond to anything that I’ve measured. — noAxioms

What is a concept and what is the I that holds it and talks about it? If you can talk about concepts like you can talk about specific lions, then what is the difference between the two if not some measurement?

The latter doesn’t seem a possible outcome of Earth evolution any more than does Harry Potter’s abilities. — noAxioms

What is possible is just another abstraction which is different than what is actual. I'm not interested in what is possible, only in what is actual so maybe we should stick to lions and not unicorns because you could be wrong about what is possible, no? If not, then what you call "possible" is actually "actual".

I’m talking about the mug but must necessarily utilize shared concepts to do so. The existence of the construct that I’ve happened to qualify with the word ‘mug’ is dependent on my measuring it, not on my concept or awareness or naming of it. — noAxioms

You only need to use shared concepts if I wasn't there sitting across from you measuring the mug with you. It would be redundant for you to say "the mug is in front of me" because the existence of the construct of the room with with you and the mug is dependent upon my measurement of the room which includes the mug being in front of you. If the mug is in front of both of us then are we measuring the same mug? If we both say, "the mug is in front of me" are we talking about the same relation or the same mug?

Measurement is about decoherence and has zero to do with awareness. People/conscious entities are not special in this regard. I’ve said this repeatedly. — noAxioms

Strange. How can you talk about measurements or decoherence that you are not aware of? If you aren't aware of some measurement or decoherence, then those measurements and decoherence that you are not aware of that you are talking about can only be abstractions, yet you keep saying that you are not talking about abstractions.

Is awareness a relation? If so, then in what way is the relations of awareness and existence different?
Awareness is a relation which seems to relate epistemological states to sensory input. It has nothing to do with the sort of existence I’m describing. — noAxioms

But that is what I'm asking: what is the difference between the relation of awareness and the relation of existence?

A worldline seems to be an identity, which in turn seems to be an abstraction only. — noAxioms

You've used the word, "worldline" at least a dozen times just on this page alone while at the same time asserting that you are not talking about abstractions. So, every time you've use the word to support something else you've said, what you said is based on an abstraction.

An exchange of scribbles is communication, not a worldline. I’m talking about sets of physical system states, not the concept of them. Sure, you potentially are not human, but some physical process is generating your end of this discourse, not just my concept of these posts. Said process, if not human, I suppose would have a less clearly bounded worldline than would a human one.
— noAxioms

Concept and abstraction are synonyms. You just described a worldline as an abstraction and then now say it's not a concept. These "physical systems states" seems to be what I've been talking about when I use the phrase, "state-of-affairs" and "what is the case". And your use of the phrase, "some physical process is generating your ends of this discourse" is what I mean when I use the term "causation". This discussion is having of problem of moving forward because you seem intent on moving goalposts and disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing. I don't see the world as convoluted or as complex as you seem to be describing it. At the end of all this scribble-making I am no closer to understanding your position than I was at the beginning.

Let me put it this way. What prevents the sum of two and two from being four in the absence of anything to quantify? You have to demonstrate that the postulate above (the one I’m rejecting) is necessary, else I’m free to reject it. I’m not making a claim other than the negative claim of the necessity of the postulate. — noAxioms

I'm saying that the absence of anything to quantify is what prevents the sum of two and two from being four. I'm also saying that the absence of categories is what prevents quantities of anything from existing. In rejecting it you are making a positive claim that there are ways of demonstrating two and two being four independent of categories and the quantity of members that form that category. I've asked you several times now what that would look like. To reject it means that you must have some other idea of what "four being the sum of two and two" is. What do you mean by the scribble "two" and "four", if not some quantity of similar objects the define a category? You used the word, "sum". What do you mean by that if not conclusion of adding quantities? In using the terms, "two" "four" and "sum" you're making a positive assertion about something. What is it?

I've been among the left for the 49 years of Roe vs. Wade and I have NEVER witnessed abortion being "celebrated" or considered a "badge of honor".

Aborting a fetus may be considered a personal medical decision, but it is not a casual, pleasant procedure. Most women apparently consider it a difficult decision--far more fraught than other medical procedures. — Bitter Crank

There seems to be two types of leftists (and right-wingers) nowadays - the moderates and the extremists. The extremists didn't exist 49 years ago.

That was my point in saying that most Americans don't see it as a black and white issue where abortions are to be banned outright, or celebrated as a joyful thing to brag about (as in wearing a "I had an abortion" or "I :heart: abortion" t-shirts). Most of the behavior of both extremes seem more to piss the other side off than to make any reasonable arguments on this topic. They just become more extreme as each side attempts to out-perform the other with preposterous actions and statements, and doing this over a period of decades has led us to where we are today.

If you think abortion is moral, go ahead and say it. Normalize it. Otherwise it's like: "abortion is moral for some of us, but not all." — frank

Saying it doesn't normalize it. Many people doing it without consulting others (like god or government) is what normalizes it.

But this diverges from the original point I was making between you and BitterCrank - that we need to be consistent in how we define life, personhood, and suffering. Both political extremes are not being consistent at all.

The question of whether abortion is murder or not hinges on whether one considers a everything from a just-fertilized egg on to a blastocyst on to a fetus with a beating heart but not much more than a neural tube for a brain on to a barely viable fetus, on to an entirely viable fetus is a "person" in the way a healthy new-born is a person.

The fetus-fetish folks think a just-fertilized egg is owed as much legal protection as a two-year od, Hence, the expected moves to outlaw 'day after' pills.

Many people do not grant personhood to a non-viable fetus; some grant personhood to a fully viable (7-9 month) fetus. — Bitter Crank

It's not just about personhood. As I stated before, vegans point to suffering as the reasons that we shouldn't abort the lives of animals. If animals can suffer, then it's not really about defining personhood, but suffering and what organisms are capable of experiencing it.

1. The planet and its plants and animals don't exist for humans to eat it up. — baker

You seem to be implying that you know the purpose of this planet and its plants and animals. Then what does the planet and its plants and animals exist for? In saying such things you seem to be implying that there was some plan for the planet and its plants and animals and it wasn't for humans to eat it up.

This also seems to imply that the state of the planet when humans evolved is the end-goal, or purpose (of the universe, god, or what?) when the planet has changed enormously before humans evolved with most animals species becoming extinct without any human involvement at all. The changes that humans have brought about since their appearance on this planet could just as well be the purpose of the planet and its plants and animals. It seems to me that extinction, or change, is the norm in this universe, so why is it that we consider ourselves and our actions "unnatural", or that the planet is suppose to remain in the state we found it, when humans are the outcomes of natural processes? After all, the purpose could just as well be that AI is the next evolutionary step and that humans, as well as all other life, will then become the energy sources for AI (the Matrix).

substances are the foundational or fundamental entities of reality.so if you believe that there are two fundamental entities of reality, mind and physical, then the argument is aimed at that. — Solaris

1-The mind and body are two separate substances, and have no shared properties

2-two substances need one shared property to interact

3-the mind and body cannot interact — Solaris

Is "fundamental" a property of all substances? Why or why not?

What is it about the property, "fundamental", that prevents two substances from interacting? If two substances (mind and physical) both share the property of being "fundamental" then why couldn't they interact?

I saw a video of some protestors where two women were wearing "I had an abortion" T-shirts. I can't seem to find it now, but you can find the t-shirts for sale if you google it. There are also "I :heart: abortion" t-shirts for sale. There must be a market for such things if they are for sale on the internet and I'm willing to bet it's not Republicans, independents or moderate Democrats buying them.

I did find this:
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/i-had-an-abortion-t-shirt_n_1435234

The people selling the shirts tried to make the case that the t-shirts are meant to destigmatize abortion. This is a flawed argument because abortion has been legal for 40 years. It is not stigmatized by the majority of Americans, only the extremists on the right, which is a minority. This is a tactic used by both sides where they make themselves and their opponents appear to be larger or that their ideas are more pervasive than they actually are to make the case that their idea is necessary because of the size and power of the opposition. They attempt to group moderate party members with their extreme party members as if they hold the same position.

Then there is this:
https://www.foxnews.com/media/msnbc-guest-make-sweet-love-to-scotus-leaker
where Laurie Kilmartin said she would "joyfully abort our fetus". She's a comedian, sure, but comedy is only funny if it has an element of truth, and it wasn't funny at all. Trust me, I know funny. I watch Impractical Jokers. :joke:

The ironic thing is that when you google this story you find it mostly on right-leaning sites, when it happened on MSNBC, as if they are trying to bury it.

The personal sphere is private and not a proper object of governmental intrusion.
— Bitter Crank

If the people judge that murder is taking place in private, then it's most definitely a governmental issue. — frank

This seems to be the point that needs to be discussed.

I see conservatives making the argument that Roe v Wade was all about some federal judges in Washington DC deciding for everyone what they can do, but that was the opposite if what Roe v Wade did. Under Roe v Wade if you didn't want an abortion you didn't have to get one, and if you did you could get one. So the conservatives are the ones imposing their will on others by taking away the personal choice and giving that choice to state governments.

I have also found hypocrisy on the left as most vegans are left-wingers and are vegans because they want to reduce suffering of animals. If animals with small brains can suffer, then what about fetuses in the womb? The brain and nervous system form in the first trimester and fetuses are shown to react to external stimuli.

There is also this celebration of abortion that the left has, as if having an abortion is a badge of honor rather than a tragedy. Abortion is invasive and can be dangerous. It should be a last resort because the use of other less invasive forms of contraception failed, or that the mother was raped or her life is in danger.

I see both sides talking past each other and making it a black and white issue in that you are either totally against abortion in all cases or totally for abortion being made for any reason and at any time even up to the point of birth. I don't believe that most Americans see it as a black and white issue. As usual it is the extremists on both sides dominating the conversation.

I received an an alert that your link was blocked due to a Trojan virus so I didn't go any further in trying to read it.

While I agree that there are natural things that challenge our definitions and categories, there are far more objects that fit neatly in and outside of those categories than lie in the grey area of Eucalypts and not-Eucalypts, and that must mean something. There must be a reason that our categories are useful and that reason is that most objects do fit neatly inside and outside of our categories. Errors in DNA replication are rare, not common, and that must mean something.

It seems that some definitions are in order. What is a substance and what is a property?

The OP lays out the problem of substance dualism well enough. I agree that it is obvious that mind and matter interact.

The problem with property dualism is that it appears to me that there are much more than just two properties, and that asserting that mind is a property has just as many issues as asserting that matter is a property. There are properties of size, mass, location, time, dimension, color, shape, temperature, etc.
all of which exist in some form or another in the mind and in the world. For instance, temperature can be the property of internal energy within a physical system or the feeling of hot or cold in a mental system. One might point to this as the nature of property dualism but science seems to inform us that mind has only just recently come into existence in a universe that has been only physical for most of its existence. So mind is really just an outcome of complex physical interactions. For property dualism to be valid there must have been some aspect of mind that has existed since the beginning with the physical, but what would that even look like? Why do physicists only describe physical properties and interactions when explaining the Big Bang? What are the mental properties of the Big Bang?

It also seems to be, at least slightly, anthropomorphic to assert mind as being a fundamental property of the universe.

My view is that the universe is not physical or mental. It is a process. All physical states and mental states are processes. Objects are really the outcome of mental processes in how minds objectify external processes. Think of how a computer can translate an analog signal into a digital signal. In this view brains are the mental representations (representation is a process) of other minds (processes).

For me, definition means to place separations/ delineations, limitations or parameters around a concept or thing which divides it into A “the defined” - the content within the parameters, and B “all other things” ie. “it” and “not it”. Definitions separate things by character or relationship to one another. By “contrast” essentially. — Benj96

Right, so the opposite of a word would be what constrains that word. So,

However this immediately leads to some issues especially at the extremes.
If I take the word “everything” how do I define it? You cannot “divide” the concept of “everything” as it is parameterless. Any parameter to u try to place around the set/ content is also included in the set/content.

Similarly you cannot define nothing as it’s contentless. You can’t place a parameter around an empty set. — Benj96

https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/everything

Seems like "nothing" and "everything" contrast each other. Everything = the opposite of nothing. To illustrate, think about the memories you have since you were born and the memories you have before you were born.

This would mean that if we define “shoe” as the Oxford English Dictionary does as “one pair of objects usually made of leather or plastic that you wear on your feet” , a shoe can never be a). something you don’t wear on your feet, b). A non physical object or c) something that doesn’t come in pairs. Do you thing that’s a good definition of a shoe?

Because that definition permits someone to be wearing a pair of plastic watering cans they have never removed from their feet, they’ve always been there, and if they were to lose one they will have violated some law about not being in pairs and the watering-can would reappear magically.

Obviously this is an absurd and overly literal interpretation of “shoe” but it highlights the degree of assumptions we require in order to appreciate a definition correctly. Is a good definition then really one where no assumptions have to made?

It seems that the more specific you make a definition, the more possibilities you omit, that is to say the more inaccurate the definition it gets as most things can be made in an endless myriad of styles, shapes, forms, and even functions and from multiple materials in any number of combinations.

What then do all the millions of shoes in the world have in common? Some are graphics on paper or in media, some are described concepts from peoples minds and some are on your feet but all of them can be defined easily by anyone as a “shoe.”

The most accurate definition of a shoe could be said to be “something”. It’s likely that this definition will indeed contain the set of all possible shoes. However no that the definition is accurate it is completely non-specific.

So it appears that specificity and accuracy in language are inversely related. Definitions can be specific but inaccurate or non-specific and accurate.
Thoughts? — Benj96

The fact that you used the term, "watering cans" instead of "shoes" shows that there is a distinction between watering cans and shoes. Can shoes hold water? So you can add, cannot hold water to the definition of shoes. We only need to be as specific in our definitions as the goal requires. Most people understand what one means when we say "shoes". This usually meets the requirements to achieve the goal of communicating what one intends to communicate.

You then go on to describe this use of "watering cans" as "shoes" as "absurd". What does that mean if not that it would be absurd to think of watering cans when someone uses the word, "shoes". What you have done is define "shoes" in a way that excludes watering cans. To be absurd means that if you thought of watering cans as shoes then you are not using the proper definition of "shoes".

I think that there is a reason why there is difficulty in defining say "consciousness" or "god" as opposed to "shoes". What do you think that reason could be?

I don’t exist relative to the unicorn. It’s expressed as a relation. “X doesn’t exist” is meaningless because no relation is specified. — noAxioms

You dont necessarily need to specify a relation if it is implied. It seems to me that "X doesn't exist" would be a relation between X and the one making the statement.

If you really cannot accept the name ‘unicorn’, then just think of it as some word arbitrarily assigned to some creature on a different evolutionary future than the ones with humans. — noAxioms

Where is this creature in relation to me? Doesn't "X exists (in relation to the one making the statement)" and "X doesn't exist (in relation to the one making the statement)" describe two different kinds of relations? If so, then what is the difference? What other types of relations are there besides "exist/not exist"?

It's not about the name by itself. It's about the name's relation to what it references, and whether or not it actually references something or if we just believe that it does. Can we say the same for the name, "god"? Can there not be relations where we believe relations to be? Can there be relations that we aren't aware of and therefore cannot talk about? What about the infinite number of creatures that have no name?

What if I were to say, "there is no relation between X (me) and Y (unicorns/god/Harry Potter)"? If "X exists" and "X doesn't exist" are both relations, then what use of language describes no relation? What use of language describes a relation between X and Y, a relation between Y and Z but no relation between X and Z? If there are X, Y and Z and only two of them have a relation, then how do we describe that situation? Would Y be the relation between X and Z? Can there be an X and a Z with no relation?

It’s a reasonable creature (minus the rainbow blowing out of its butt) and it would be dang unlikely that it’s not a valid future of Earth state from say 100 million years ago. — noAxioms

What do you mean by it being a reasonable creature vs the version that has rainbows blowing out of its butt? If we can talk about both versions, then what makes one string of scribbles more reasonable than the other? What do the different strings, "some creature on a different evolutionary future than the ones with humans" and "some creature with a rainbow blowing out of its butt" of scribbles reference, and how does what one string reference differ from what the other references?

Some relations are bidirectional. Some relations are unidirectional such as Y measures X, meaning Steve the stegosaurus exists to me but I don’t exist to Steve. — noAxioms

But you said that X doesn't exist in relation to Y is a relation. So there is a bidirectional relation. It seems to me that in saying that X (me) does not exist in relation to Y (Steve) is to say that there is no relation at all. Only this way can there be a unidirectional relation because there is no relation rather than a different relation. Or, there could be no direction at all to relations, which seems to make more sense. What if I were to say that there is not a direction to relations? What effect does that have on your statement of the opposite? What would be the type of relation between the two conflicting statements (string of scribbles)?

"It seems to me that the unicorn's existence is dependent on your existence to imagine it's existence."

This is expressed without a relation. It very much exists relative to anything that gets gored by that horn. I’m not suggesting that imagination/abstraction has any causal powers beyond creation of ideas. I’m talking about the unicorn, not the idea of a unicorn, but I necessarily must use ideas to discuss it just like I necessarily must use ideas to discuss the mug in front of me. — noAxioms

Then are you talking about the mug in front of you or your idea of the mug in front of you. There is the possibility that you could be hallucinating, or lying. Drawing the scribbles, "unicorn" is caused by your idea of a unicorn, imaginary or not. If you had never heard of unicorns, would you be able to write the scribble, or a draw a picture? It seems to me that your imagination is the effect of prior ideas. Could you imagine a unicorn if you had never seen a horse or a horn? Imaginings are unique amalgams of prior experiences.

What other word conveys to me that we can interact, that it is not possible that you are not in the world I see, or more in particular, that some part of your worldline is within my past light cone? I don’t have a word that better expresses that, except it has to include the relation: You exist to me. You don’t exist to the unicorn, but Steve probably does (yes, the very same Steve). — noAxioms

"Causation".

Let’s say I’m older. If you qualify ‘me’ and ‘you’ as unique worldlines, then no part of your worldline was in the past light cone of my younger moments, so you didn’t exist to me then, but some part of my worldline is in the past light cone of your first moment, so I always exist to you, even if I die first, just like Steve exists to us despite the termination of its worldline. — noAxioms

But I wasn't aware of your existence, nor were you aware of mine, until our first interaction. So you seem to be implying that there can be relations that exist without our awareness of them, which seems to answer one of my questions I asked earlier in this post. Is awareness a relation? If so, then in what way is the relations of awareness and existence different? A "worldline" would be another relation, no? What is a "worldline" a relation of?

Did you exist prior to our first interaction?
Our first interaction took seconds. Quantum decoherence occurs incredibly quickly, especially when there’s no vacuum separating us. It has nothing to do with being human or any kind of say deliberate information transfer. Remember one of my few axioms: Nothing special about humans or even life.

If so, in what way did we exist?
After that decoherence, each of our states is a function of the state of the other. But the state of the unicorn is not a function of our state. — noAxioms

I'm not asking about our interaction. I'm asking about your "worldline" prior to our interaction, which is just an exchange of scribbles on a screen. After all, I might not be a human at all. I could just be a program like Eliza that you are having a conversation with, which goes to what I was asking before in how what ideas we may have could be incompatible with what is actually the case.

Only if you say ‘the state of affairs relative to X’ since the state of affairs is technically different for every event X. The wording implies a moment in time, and so far I’ve avoided that by talking about worldlines instead of events at specific times along those worldlines.
Having thought about it, we can replace ‘X exists relative to Y’ with ‘Y measures X’. This identifies a unique relation that seems to apply only to a very limited number of structures. The ‘fellow member of some structure’ relation is different. Then perhaps we could avoid the word ‘exists’ altogether. — noAxioms

If X (some state of affairs) exists in relation to Y (you) and X (some state of affairs) exists in relation to Z (me), then how do we know that X is the same state of affairs that we are talking about? It seems to me that we would always be talking past each other, and if that is the case, then I don't see any reason to continue this interaction. There must be some reason you are communicating with me - what is that reason if not to share one's ideas about a state-of-affairs that exists for both of us? Does this conversation exist just for us, or for others who might come along and read our posts? Is it the same conversation for us - the participants as it is for non-participating readers? Are both of us and readers suppose to find our conversation useful? What would it mean for some conversation to be useful?

Neither a worldline nor an event along a worldline is especially a state of affairs, but there is a state of affairs relative to it. I am not ‘war in Ukraine’, but there is a state of war in Ukraine relative to me (a system at say the time of posting this). On the other hand, I, as a system at a specific time, constitute the state of that system, and thus am a local state of affairs. By identification of a time, I’ve dropped down to speaking of events instead of worldlines, which opens up a different can of worms about identity of those events. — noAxioms

The war in Ukraine is a relation between Russia and Ukraine, so you're talking about relations in relation to another relation. You are a relation between your various organs and stored information that make you you. In other words, it's (causal/information) relations all the way down.

If a measurement has been taken, then that measurement makes the measured state actual to the measurer. If not, then none of the potential states exist relative to that non-measurer, just like neither the dead state of cat nor the live state of cat exists relative to the exterior of the box. There I go using ‘exists’ again, but it seems trivially tautological to say “If not, then none of the potential states are measured relative to that non-measurer”. Ontology in this universe is measurement. To say something exists in the absence of measurement is to assert the principle of counterfactual definiteness, a principle which necessarily must reject locality and thus accept things like cause significantly (years) after its effect.
Maybe we’re talking past each other, but that’s how I’m best able to work in your wording into a relational description. — noAxioms

If you are older, then in what way did I measure you prior to our interaction? It seems to me that you were a state-of-affairs (a relation between you and your friends and family and everything else you've interacted with, or that has measured you) prior to our interaction. So when we interacted, was I measuring a prior measurement?

Our meeting had nothing to do with it. You had information on me, which is what decoherence does. Technically, X existing to Y means X is some ‘state of affairs’ in the past causal cone of Y, which is approximated by a light cone, but in special circumstances where information transfer is totally inhibited (Schrodinger’s box), can be a smaller subset than that. — noAxioms

I had no information on "you" until we met. Even then, we haven't actually met. I've only met scribbles on a screen. You could be a computer program and not a human. Until I actually meet you in person, then your scribbles are all that exists in relation to me. Are your scribbles a measurement of you? Do your scribbles exhaust all there is to be you? If not, then there is some state-of-affairs that makes you you that I am not aware of, or haven't measured.

Meeting has nothing to do with anything. I (worldline) exist relative to the state of affairs of this planet today (event), therefore it has measured me (worldline). — noAxioms

Of course it does. I haven't actually met you. I have met your scribbles. What relation does the state-of-affairs of your scribbles on this screen have with the state-of-affairs that is you? Are the scribbles all there is to being you?

It seems to be a relation of non-counterfactual wave function collapse, a relation unique to non-counterfactual physics that support it. A universe counterfactual physics such as GoL or Bohmian mechanics, the definition doesn’t work since these models posit existence that is not a function of measurement. Causality in GoL is straightforward, but really complicated in Bohmian mechanics where the state of a system might be determined by causes in the far future. I’m not concerned with this since my model holds to locality for this universe. No reverse causality. — noAxioms

Seems like a use of scribbles (on state-of-affairs) that references another state-of-affairs that exists independent of my awareness or belief in or understanding of such. If I don't understand what you just said, then what does that say about the state-of-affairs that you are referencing? If it's understandable to you but not to me, then have we not established two different relations that are incompatible with each other? Is your understanding of what you just wrote and my lack of understanding of what you just wrote about the same state-of-affairs (the state-of-affairs that your scribbles reference, not the use of the scribbles)? If you are not writing about some state-of-affairs that I can measure in the same way that you have, then how do we know that our ideas are about the same thing?

Again, I’ve not been talking about abstractions. I’m talking about an alternate mammal species on Earth in a world with a different evolutionary history. I’m using it as an illustrative device. — noAxioms

Sounds like an abstraction to me. Where is this alternate mammal species in relation to the scribble, "unicorn" and where is this different evolutionary history in relation to the scribble, "different evolutionary history"?

I don't believe in any fundamental scale of reality independent of some view of reality. Wholes and members of wholes are the products of different views (measurements) of the same thing.
I couldn’t understand that. Perhaps an illustrative example would help. — noAxioms

Sound like something similar to this:

Rovelli would disagree, and I'm with him on that point. He says a system cannot measure itself (cannot collapse its own wave function) and thus cannot meaningfully assess the state of its own existence just like inability of the cat in the box to determine what the observer outside the box will observe upon opening the box. It was the reading of Rovelli on which much of my view is based. He’s the one that defines existence (at least in this universe) as a measurement relation. I’m driving it a bit further I think. — noAxioms

The problem with this though is that it requires a measurer for any state-of-affairs to be the case, but then who measures the measurer? It's measurements all the way down.

It’s not necessarily spatial. — noAxioms

A disagreement. If you and I disagree about the nature of some state-of-affairs, then are we taking different measurements of the same state-of-affairs and talking about our measurements and not the state-of-affairs that is being measured? Again, it seems to me that the implication of your use of scribbles is that we can never talk about what is measured. We can only talk about our measurements which would be two different states-of-affairs, and we would be talking past each other. So what is the point of having a conversation if we can't talk about the same state-of-affairs?

Not sure what you mean by this. You make it sound like a movie, a story with all the events pre-planned (determinism) and no choices to be made by an outside entity (the player). The programmer certainly doesn’t know how the game will progress. There are more possible events than there is code. — noAxioms

Sure there are choices, but not an infinite number of choices. You can only make choices that are made available in the code. Any other choice would crash the program, or simply produce an error (which is part of the code). The player's actions are constrained by the code.

Not following. Outside the game the code doesn’t ‘happen’ at all, and during the game, groups of instructions are indeed executed in sequence. Usually there are several (4 to hundreds) of instruction streams running at once.
Maybe I’m not getting your usage of ‘at once’, which I’m probably incorrectly equating to ‘at the same time’. This is sort of the language used to describe a block universe, a completely self-contained structure containing time, but without change to the structure itself. It is said that all moments of this block exist ‘at once’ and don’t ‘happen’, which is different than saying that the events are at the same time, which would be wrong as saying they’re all at the same place. — noAxioms

Outside the game the code is a state-of-affairs - one that can be downloaded and then loaded into the computer's memory. Once loaded in the computer's working memory the code transforms inputs to outputs per it's instructions. The code remains the same even though different players may make different choices (inputs) that produce different outputs, but all are constrained by the code. A player will most likely never execute some bit of code because they never made the choice to pursue that part of the game and chose to pursue another part, but that doesn't mean the code for those inputs are not there. It just means that those functions in the program were never used or executed. The open world is one particular world. It may be a fantasy world as opposed to a sci-fi world. That world is defined by the code. All potential actions by a player are constrained by the code. A player can't use a baseball bat in the game if there is no code for a baseball bat in the program. The player can only use objects that are in the game and go to places that are in the game. The events in the game force the player along a specific timeline. If the player wastes to much time exploring or taking on different quests that are not part of the main quest then the villain ends up taking over the world and that timeline is defined by the code. All of these events and objects are defined by the code that was written before any player loaded the game on their computer. We are both playing the same game, which is to say that we are using the same code and restricted to the same timeline and events despite the fact that we may make different choices in playing the game. No matter who plays the game, the villain takes over the world at a particular point per the instructions in the program.

It is the difference between a physical rock made of protons and such, and the abstraction (or the referencing) of a rock, consisting of mental process and discourse. I’m not talking about abstractions. A rhino is almost a unicorn, if only it leaned more on the equine side. Surely unicorns are a possible future of some fairly recent state of Earth’s biological history. The unicorn of which I speak probably doesn’t look completely like the abstraction I have in mind, but that’s also true of say you. — noAxioms

Then how do we know that we are talking about the same thing?

But I’m not talking about scribbles or abstractions. You keep attempting to drive things there. I’m not disagreeing with your discussion of abstractions and scribbles, but it’s not on topic. — noAxioms

My point is that we can talk about scribbles and abstractions in the same way we can talk about unicorns and mugs. We are talking about relations and scribbles and what they reference is a type of relation, so it isn't off-topic. I'm trying to understand the relation between your use of scribbles and what they reference, and how that relation would be useful to me if to me it is a different relation than it is to you. In effect we would be talking past each other.

How is what you are talking about when not talking about scribbles or abstractions, the same for me if they are different relations or measurements? If "X exists in relation to you" and "X exists in relation to me", are you talking about the relations or X? If you're talking about the relation, then how can I ever understand the relation between you and X when I am not you, but I am me and the relation between X and you and X and me are two different things. If you aren't talking about abstractions then you aren't talking about relations. You are talking about X independent of any relation. Only then would I find your use of scribbles useful or understandable to me.

It is admittedly harder to think of numbers being things in themselves and not just abstractions, but imagine if mathematics worked even without humans or other life forms to utilize them. Imagine the sum of two and two actually being four and not only being four when some calculator executes the computation.
I know, it’s like asking you to imagine something independent of an imaginer. — noAxioms

The same goes for any scribble, like words. I don't understand what you mean by mathematics working even without humans to utilize them. It seems that for something to work, it needs to be utilized. How would the sum of two and two equal four if not by there being a quantity of some thing, and for there to be a quantity of some thing there must be a category of some thing that different, yet similar, things fall into. For there to be two of anything and subsequently four of anything, there must be a category of things in which there is at least two things that fit into that category, or else there would be only one of everything.

If "2+2=4" is more than just scribbles on this screen, then what is the relation between the scribbles and what they refer to? What form would 2+2=4 take if not just a string of scribbles, but is something more fundamental? In what way would 2+2=4 be the case independent of these scribbles? You would need to illustrate 2+2=4 without using these scribbles. Maybe you could use unicorns. :nerd:

No, they’d not be scribbles, which is an abstraction. I’m not talking about abstractions or any instantiation of the numbers. I’m proposing that mathematics is more fundamental than the scribbles that allow us to abstract it. — noAxioms

What I am asking for you to illustrate the form that this fundamental nature of mathematics takes independent of the scribbles. Does this help?

aa + aa = aaaa

Interesting. You can add scribbles just like you can add unicorns.

Scribbles are not abstractions. Don't you have scribbles in front if you in the same way that you can a mug in front of you?

Scribbles are tools that we use to communicate in the same way that a hammer is a tool that you use to build a house, or a mug you use to hold your coffee.

Is, "alhg;alhdjlshtjh;ajhj;thjk b:Jbfjht" an abstraction? The reference between the patterns of light on your computer screen and what they reference is the abstraction. The relation is arbitrary. In other words, the relation between the patterns of light and what they reference would be the abstraction and in talking about (some) relations you'd be talking about abstractions. This explains why your relation with unicorns and my relation with unicorns are abstractions in the sense that they are not the unicorn, but the relation between unicorns and each of us, and in talking about the relation, we'd be talking about different things (the relation), not the unicorn.

It just means a woman in Mississippi who wants an abortion will have to drive a while to get to a state that does them. A woman who doesn't have transport will probably be able to get a local one illegally. That's how it was before Roe. — frank

Not necessarily. Much has changed since Roe v Wade. I think that abortion will still be legal in all states but with varying limitations depending on the state. You should still be able to get an abortion, just under specific circumstances (like rape, or life of the mother is threatened) or within a certain time frame (before the third trimester).

The scare tactics are predictable though. Both sides do it - engaging in spreading disinformation or faulty predictions about what the other side intends, basically demonizing the other side. It's just the elites of both sides mobilizing their flocks for a battle to impose their own views on the rest of us.