Institute for Bioethical Epistemology — Working Paper No. 1
Pissemology
The value-epistemic thesis that moral status is known and grounded through the presence of autonomous self-regulating biological function, indexed by independent micturitive homeostasis.
§ 1 — Core Thesis
The Micturitive Threshold Theory
“Pissemology is the value epistemic thesis that moral status is known and grounded through the presence of autonomous self-regulating biological function and that the cleanest, least arbitrary index of such function is independent micturitive homeostasis.”
— MG, Foundational Statement, 2026
Before independent urination occurs, the fetus lacks the specific marker of autonomous biological self-regulation required for moral personhood under this framework. However, once the pissing occurs — meaning the fetus demonstrates independent, homeostatic control of micturition — it has satisfied the key criterion for moral status.
From that threshold moment forward, abortion would be morally impermissible because it would terminate a being now recognized as possessing full moral standing. The act of urinating independently is not causally significant in itself, but rather serves as the observable threshold that confirms the presence of the underlying property: autonomous self-regulating biological function upon which moral status rests.
This approach resolves a central ambiguity in both pro-life and pro-choice philosophical frameworks — namely, the question of when morally relevant personhood begins — by grounding the answer in an empirically verifiable biological milestone rather than in contested metaphysical claims about consciousness, viability, or ensoulment.
§ 2 — Epistemological Framework
How We Know Who Has Moral Status
Pissemology draws on three overlapping epistemological traditions to ground its central claim that moral status is knowable through observable biological evidence.
Empiricism
The argument relies on observable biological facts — self-regulation, independent bodily functions, urination with complex homeostasis — as evidence. Knowledge of moral status is gained through empirical observation rather than intuition or revelation.
Naturalized Epistemology
The argument attempts to answer a normative question — "Who has moral status?" — by appealing to biological science. It treats scientific facts about organisms as the basis for justified beliefs about moral standing.
Foundationalism
The theory assumes there is a basic, objective criterion — autonomous biological function — from which all judgments about moral status can be derived. This criterion functions as the epistemic bedrock of the theory.
§ 3 — Metaethical Commitments
The Normative Foundations
Three primary metaethical positions underpin Pissemology. Side theories and further derivations are not addressed in this overview.
Moral Naturalism
Moral properties — having moral status — are identified with or grounded in natural biological properties. The theory claims moral facts can be discovered through facts about nature, specifically the presence of autonomous biological regulatory systems.
Moral Realism
The argument assumes there is an objectively correct answer about who has moral status. It treats moral status not as a matter of opinion or social convention, but as a fact of the world discoverable through rigorous biological inquiry.
Biological Functionalism
Moral status is tied to the performance of certain biological functions. The performance of micturitive homeostasis is not morally relevant per se, but serves as the clearest, most observable proxy for the deeper functional property that grounds personhood.
§ 4 — Bibliography
Citations & Further Reading
- [1]
MG (2026). Foundational Statement on Pissemology.
Originating discourse. Unpublished.
- [2]
Kairo [SM2] (2026). Commentary on the Micturitive Threshold: Abortion, Autonomous Function, and the Onset of Moral Status.
Collaborative elaboration.
- [3]
Quine, W. V. O. (1969). Epistemology Naturalized.
In Ontological Relativity and Other Essays. Columbia University Press. Foundational text for naturalized epistemology.
- [4]
Foot, P. (2001). Natural Goodness.
Oxford University Press. Background for biological functionalism in ethics.
- [5]
Marquis, D. (1989). Why Abortion Is Immoral.
The Journal of Philosophy, 86(4), 183–202. Contextual foil; threshold theories as alternatives.
- [6]
Warren, M. A. (1973). On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion.
The Monist, 57(4), 43–61. Alternative criteria-based account of moral personhood.
- [7]
Moore, G. E. (1903). Principia Ethica.
Cambridge University Press. Foundational moral realism; the open question argument.
- [8]
Putnam, H. (1967). Psychological Predicates.
In W. H. Capitan & D. D. Merrill (Eds.), Art, Mind, and Religion. Pittsburgh University Press. Foundational for functionalism.
This document is a living reference. For citation in academic contexts, use:
MG & Kairo [SM2]. (2026). Pissemology: A Micturitive Threshold Theory of Moral Status. Unpublished manuscript. Retrieved from pissemology.org.