Legalise abortion

The Corinthian

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Sorry no Corinthian, you can not just change what you said. You clearly said “Sperm and ova do not posses DNA”. Yes they do. You quite clearly said “sperm or eggs do not have unique DNA”. They in fact do.

And I should have said genome. My bad. Should we discount your arguments because you confused consciousness with sentience? This is what I mean by pedantry.

Now you are changing it with caveats of your own, which is comical after you being so obsessed with caveats before.

I'm not, I'm simply correcting the term I was using, which was incorrect - just as consciousness was the incorrect term for you. A caveat is something different - it is where you state something as fact and then 'warn' (hint: that's what it means in Latin) of exceptions to the rule. I have not done this.

It now has to be in an independent homo sapien and that independent has to be capable of developing to maturity.

Actually, I said this several pages ago, so please do not accuse me of changing anything.

So call it names all you like, pedantary or whatever, but I am in no way admonished to sit here and let you invent your own science and facts to back up a non-point and then put up with attempts to make me feel guilty for pointing out the errors.

Don't be juvenile. I used an incorrect term, so have you. I corrected it. It is not a caveat and to now use this as a dismissal without bothering to defend your own position is intellectually fraudulent.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Wow. I did not realise I did not actually need evidence, science, argument, or debate. I just needed someone to call it "wrong" and thats that. My entire world view is changed

To begin with you have presented precious little evidence yourself to defend your own position.

Secondly, arguments have been put forward - you have consistently failed to address the issue that your position is heavily dependant on numerous caveats to make it hold together. You've denied that they exist, even though it has been put to you on numerous occasions - you have not even bothered to address them.

Finally, this debate is about two different definitions of what constitutes a person deserving of (unspecified) rights - essentially a peer review that seeks to test them. This does not mean that either of them are correct - just because one may be, the other is not necessarily the truth, only our best available stance at the present time, until demonstrated otherwise.

This is not the politics board. The purpose here is not to convert. We may both be wrong or one of us may be right or, quite possibly, one of us may simply be closer to the truth than the other but still incorrect. It is only through such discussion that you can test what we believe and change - if, on the other hand, you want to convert, then this is probably not the correct forum for you.

nozzferrahhtoo

drkpower wrote: »

Being a smartass doesnt become you

No but it becomes the response you gave me. Saying something is wrong and thats that is hardly a killer argument is it? I am afraid I dignify what I read with responses of equal merit. Quid Pro Quo.

drkpower wrote: »

nor does repeatedly failing to answer the substantive question about born children who never had sentience or adults who have lost it

Ignoring my answer is not the same as me ignoring the question. Quite the opposite. I already answered this. I shall repeat it however. We do not know enough about consciousness to make judgments one way or another. I simply say that when the faculty forms then the "person" gets rights and holds on to them until death do them part. Anyone born without it, or who loses it, is essentially brain dead and I have no qualms about saying there is no rights to be assigned here.

However do not mix that up with "losing consciousness" and comas and the like, which is entirely different but it is an easy pitfall to make. I made it myself often at the beginning of reading all I read before forming my position on this.

The faculty is still there, it is just not operating normally. Developing without it, or losing it but not dying, is a phenomenon so rare that I can not even think right now of a condition to which you refer. Maybe you can give me an example and I can clarify further.

drkpower wrote: »

And why, when you say here with such proud definitiveness, that the foetus with no conciousness/sentience is not human and has no rights whatsoever and that there is certainly no conciousness/sentience at 16 weeks, do you say, on the other thread on abortion in this forum, that the fact that 66% of women abort <9 weeks "comforts you"?

Ah this is easy, you have simply misread what I wrote, or I did not get my point over clear enough. However I can clarify quite quickly without quibbling over you misunderstanding me or me not being clear enough.

Quite simply what I mean by this is my cut off is 16 weeks and the US and UK it is 24-26 weeks which distresses me. So it comforts me greatly that even though the law is way higher there than I would like it, most people do not wait that long. In other words it is not that I am happy that 66% are <9 weeks per se, but that the fact that 66% of them ARE <9 weeks means that said 66% are then by definition < the 24 weeks which distresses me.

nozzferrahhtoo

Hi metro, thanks for the questions, let me see if i can help with some.

metrovelvet wrote: »

1. I never knew that sperm didn't have dna.

They do. The person who claimed they did not on the thread was entirely wrong in this. If in doubt, check it out. Do not take my word or the others persons word for it. Read the science. I linked to a few articles specifically referring to Sperm DNA which should help you start.

metrovelvet wrote: »

2. What is sentience exactly? How do you measure it scientifically?

We can not at this time. Our science at this time is not good enough. Anyone who tells you we can is lying or misinformed. This is why I do not base my opinions on abortions on levels of sentience, or types, but at a point in the development when we can very safely say it is not there at all. Not a little bit, not a lot, but not AT ALL.

metrovelvet wrote: »

3. Why does it qualify your right to life moreso than being human does?

I feel this is so because it is FROM that part of us that "rights" come. It is not me therefore that is elevating it in this discussion, but it that elevates itself. If such a thing did not exist we would not be here talking about rights in the first place. We wouldnt give a toss. Dogs and Dolphins do not sit around talking or thinking about rights do they?

metrovelvet wrote: »

4. How do you know a foetus at 8, 9 weeks, or up to 16 weeks whatever DOES not have sentience, whatever that is?

I answered this before but it is fine. Like Gravity and Matter most people do not know what they are, where they come from, how or why. However we are still able to identify clearly when they are entirely absent arent we?

Similarly we have so much more to learn about this stuff, but what we do know is certain building blocks have to be present. I do not know much about cars, but I know without parts of its engine it does nothing. Similarly we know little about this stuff but we know the parts of the engine it simply can not operate without. I read about many of these and I find the the earliest one of them to form does not even begin to form until 20 weeks on average.

Just like a car will not run without spark plugs, we know sentience and consciousness will not run without these things.

metrovelvet wrote: »

5. How can you be confident in science technology to be able to detect and measure how old the foetus is?

Actually the ability to date the age of a fetus accurately is well within our capabilities. Hell we even know generally how many cells it has at a given time for the most part.

The Corinthian

metrovelvet wrote: »

1. I never knew that sperm didn't have dna.

They have DNA in that they have genetic material, however they do not have a full human genome.

2. What is sentience exactly? How do you measure it scientifically?

You'd better ask him whether he means sentience or conciousness - he appears a bit fuzzy on that one.

metrovelvet

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

We can not at this time. Our science at this time is not good enough. Anyone who tells you we can is lying or misinformed. This is why I do not base my opinions on abortions on levels of sentience, or types, but at a point in the development when we can very safely say it is not there at all. Not a little bit, not a lot, but not AT ALL.

But you cant safely say that can you if the science at this time is not good enough? You are in a xeno's paradox.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I feel this is so because it is FROM that part of us that "rights" come. It is not me therefore that is elevating it in this discussion, but it that elevates itself. If such a thing did not exist we would not be here talking about rights in the first place. We wouldnt give a toss. Dogs and Dolphins do not sit around talking or thinking about rights do they?

They might for all we know in their own way. They defend their lives, their territory, their young.

I dont think our rights have anything to do with sentience, whatever that is, they are from us assigning them to us, based on being human.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I answered this before but it is fine. Like Gravity and Matter most people do not know what they are, where they come from, how or why. However we are still able to identify clearly when they are entirely absent arent we?

Who are most people? Who are the other people that do know, where what and why?

We do know where gravity comes from, it comes from the force of the earth spinning. We do know what matter is, it is carbon based material [at least taht is what I remember from eigth grade science. We know the world is made of of atoms and particles and strings and whatever else the physicists have discovered.

But what the hell has this got to do with anything?

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Similarly we have so much more to learn about this stuff, but what we do know is certain building blocks have to be present. I do not know much about cars, but I know without parts of its engine it does nothing. Similarly we know little about this stuff but we know the parts of the engine it simply can not operate without. I read about many of these and I find the the earliest one of them to form does not even begin to form until 20 weeks on average.

What are you talking about? The earliest car doesnt form until 20 weeks? WHAT?????

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Just like a car will not run without spark plugs, we know sentience and consciousness will not run without these things.

A car will not run without a lot of things, petrol, a battery, an engine,and a driver. What has this got to do with the price of butter?

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Actually the ability to date the age of a fetus accurately is well within our capabilities. Hell we even know generally how many cells it has at a given time for the most part.

Well, given they got the age of my son way off in the second trimester and I ended up in surgery, I dont have absolute faith in our technology or the human interpretive error behind it. Not something I would want to base life and death on.

nozzferrahhtoo

Insults demean only the insulter, not the insulted Corinthinan. You can go around calling people Juvenile or pedantic all you want. The fact is you came out with inaccurate science and I corrected it. If insults are all you have to offer someone who does this then there is little more to say to you. Insults are last hiding place of people with nothing left to offer in the conversation but feel they have to say something.

If the best you have to offer me a this time is calling me pedantic while being pedantic yourself then there is little I have left to learn off you. My use of the word consciousness is both fine in this context and I have further clarified on two occasions what I mean by it. It is interchangeable with sentience in the right context and you only need to google the phrase human consciousness or “the rise of human consciousness” to find many 100s of people using it in exactly the same way as I. Not all words have black and white meanings, but with a huge portion of them context is everything.

You are indeed right that this is not a conversion board, but a place to learn by discussion, and if inaccurate science of the gamete and meiosis and name calling is the sum total of what you have to offer then all that is left for me is to thank you profusely for your time (thank you thank you) and move one.

Turtwig

The Corinthian wrote: »

You'd better ask him whether he means sentience or conciousness - he appears a bit fuzzy on that one.

Really?
Seems to me like he's doing his best to be as clear on it as possible.

Eliot Rosewater

I always find it funny, albeit a little annoying, and boring, when the abortion discussions (invariably) progress to the arena of science and biology. In particular, the ridiculous way in which both sides insinuate that their views stem from science, not philosophy.

In fact, people never talk about actual science, they merely cloak their philosophy in scientific terminology in a profound measure aimed to add credence to their views. The other side will then return with another list of terms and acronyms, and always with an amazingly subjective interpretation of what they mean.

The saving grace, in terms of my faith in medicine, is that I sincerely doubt that any of ye are real biologists. Merely frequenters of the biology section of Wikipedia I imagine.

My advice: cut out the scientific crap because the abortion topic is a solely philosophical discussion and anyone who can take a peep out from behind their trench knows that.

nozzferrahhtoo

metrovelvet wrote: »

But you cant safely say that can you if the science at this time is not good enough? You are in a xeno's paradox.

There is no certainty in science. None at all. It is not a 100% operation. Nothing in science is proven 100% ever. Science is about making the best interpretation at any time based on all the evidence present without assuming any evidence or ignoring any evidence.

That said, everything we now know tells us that there are very clearly identifiable points when conciousness is not present in a human. That is why I use this to base my opinions on. It is as close to certain as science gets.

Once it BEGINS To form however we have no such certainty. We have no way to measure the subjective experiences of a fetus once this area of their being kicks in. Even when the elements of it are irregular and not sustained we can not be sure there are not flashes of awareness etc.

So no I see no problem or paradox with saying that everything we know firmly tells us that before 16 weeks there simple is no faculty of conciousness present in the fetus.

metrovelvet wrote: »

I dont think our rights have anything to do with sentience, whatever that is, they are from us assigning them to us, based on being human.

A very bold postulation and one that is easy to start to prove if you actually believe it. Name for me one source of this notion of "rights" external to the human mind. Can you find it in rocks? Up a tree? In the ocean? Beaming at us from the sun? Find it for me.

Failing that then find me a part of the human being that it comes from aside from the faculty of higher conscience. Cut off some arms and legs... no still there... paralyse them from the neck down.... no still there.... remove their eye balls... you get the picture. And when you have searched every place there is aside from the area I say it is coming from, come back to me and we will talk again.

Until that time I feel safe enough in my assertion that the human faculty of higher consciousness is both the source AND the allocator of this notion of "rights". "Rights" comes from no where else that we know of. Therefore I think this faculty is not just important in a discussion on rights and who to assign them to, but paramount to said discussion.

metrovelvet wrote: »

Who are most people? We do know where gravity comes from, it comes from the force of the earth spinning.

Actually it appears you may be one of the people to whom I refer as this is not accurate.

Spinning can indeed create artificial gravity due to centrifugal forces, but this is not what we are experiencing and gravity itself is another thing. It is caused by matter warping space time. The more mass at a point, spinning or not, the more gravity there is. There is even an equation of Newton for this which you can look up and if you want to have fun you can actually prove that you exert more gravity on your computer screen than the nearest star to our system or you can work out what gravity you are exerting on your son in the next room etc etc.

So see what I mean? Most people actually do not know where these things come from, and a lot of those people, yourself included, have been misinformed as to where they come from. Yet despite this you have no issue whatsoever in identifying when this thing you do not understand is absent.

However what it has to do with anything, which you asked, you will find here:

www.dictionary.com/browse/analogy

nozzferrahhtoo

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

I always find it funny, albeit a little annoying, and boring, when the abortion discussions (invariably) progress to the arena of science and biology. In particular, the ridiculous way in which both sides insinuate that their views stem from science, not philosophy..

You are indeed right to a large extent. I know myself that my position is a philosophical one.

However it would be useful to be clear on the difference between basing an opinion on science and INFORMING your opinion with science.

Even philosophy has to take into account what we know to be true of the world.

1) My position that rights come from the human mind is a philopsophical one.

2) My position that this human mind has not even started to form in a fetus until 20 weeks is a scientific one which is informed by reading not wikipedia as you suggest but a relatively large number of modern peer reviewed papers on the subject of the development of the human brain after conception.

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

My advice: cut out the scientific crap because the abortion topic is a solely philosophical discussion and anyone who can take a peep out from behind their trench knows that.

So with the above in mind, I thank you very mush for your advice but I can not take it on board. Philosophy without science is useless to me. We can not simply brush under the carpet all we know to be true of the world when engaging in it.

In fact the very notion of disregarding ANY source of knowledge when coming to conclusion on ANY subject is really abhorrant to me.

Eliot Rosewater

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

So with the above in mind, I thank you very mush for your advice but I can not take it on board. Philosophy without science is useless to me. We can not simply brush under the carpet all we know to be true of the world when engaging in it.

Indeed your very right. However debaters of the abortion topic don't use science so much as they abuse it. And what can you prove with science in relation to this topic? The time a a "fetus" becomes a "human being"? Thats really about it. And thats not even known! And then back to "what is a human being" etc etc.

The rest is just philosophical discourse cloaked in scientific terminology, as I said. I have no problem using science to prove something but the issue is that in relation to abortion it proves nothing and is just used to make ones argument sound more convincing to oneself. In this topic no one is won over by science it seems.

In addition to this, it is my opinion that a proper debate focuses on the reasoning people had to emerge at a particular viewpoint, rather than the supplementary evidence (I call it an excuse) that is found later and that all too conveniently fits in with what they have believed previously.

The Corinthian

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Insults demean only the insulter, not the insulted Corinthinan. You can go around calling people Juvenile or pedantic all you want.

What you have attempted is pedantry, especially given that I could accuse you of the same type of factual error. And the use of pedantry to avoid responding to points and effectively dismiss and argument made to you is frankly juvenile. Now you have appear to be using the excuse of ad hominem attacks as another diversionary tactic.

The fact is you came out with inaccurate science and I corrected it.

I responded to this above. Why are you ignoring my response?

My use of the word consciousness is both fine in this context and I have further clarified on two occasions what I mean by it.

And earlier I even said that it was the wrong word, corrected you, but let it pass because is was sentience you meant. Funny how you did not extend me the same courtesy.

It is interchangeable with sentience in the right context and you only need to google the phrase human consciousness or “the rise of human consciousness” to find many 100s of people using it in exactly the same way as I. Not all words have black and white meanings, but with a huge portion of them context is everything.

They are interchangeable only if you want to use them incorrectly. But apparently this is all right with sentience and consciousness, but not with DNA and genome. Surely you're joking?

Malty_T wrote: »

Seems to me like he's doing his best to be as clear on it as possible.

By using one term incorrectly, then changing halfway through? Refusing to respond to the criticisms that have been put forward in his position (to the point that he denies they exist - without addressing them, naturally)? Then picking on an error, that he committed earlier, and using this as a pretext to refuse debate?

You have a pretty bizarre definition of clarity in that case.

nozzferrahhtoo

As I said, you have no wholly left the discussion at hand and have made this entirely about me, while degrading only yourself by throwing out insults. I literally have nothing to learn from this and so as I said I thank you for your time thus far, but I require no more of it at this time. Next time I see anything relevant to the actual topic, you can be sure I will reply again. However pulling me up on using a word in the same way as 100s of people all over the place is not likely to keep this thread moving especially when after doing so you call OTHER people pedantic.

metrovelvet

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

There is no certainty in science. None at all. It is not a 100% operation. Nothing in science is proven 100% ever. Science is about making the best interpretation at any time based on all the evidence present without assuming any evidence or ignoring any evidence.

That said, everything we now know tells us that there are very clearly identifiable points when conciousness is not present in a human. That is why I use this to base my opinions on. It is as close to certain as science gets.

Once it BEGINS To form however we have no such certainty. We have no way to measure the subjective experiences of a fetus once this area of their being kicks in. Even when the elements of it are irregular and not sustained we can not be sure there are not flashes of awareness etc.

So no I see no problem or paradox with saying that everything we know firmly tells us that before 16 weeks there simple is no faculty of conciousness present in the fetus.



A very bold postulation and one that is easy to start to prove if you actually believe it. Name for me one source of this notion of "rights" external to the human mind. Can you find it in rocks? Up a tree? In the ocean? Beaming at us from the sun? Find it for me.

Failing that then find me a part of the human being that it comes from aside from the faculty of higher conscience. Cut off some arms and legs... no still there... paralyse them from the neck down.... no still there.... remove their eye balls... you get the picture. And when you have searched every place there is aside from the area I say it is coming from, come back to me and we will talk again.

Until that time I feel safe enough in my assertion that the human faculty of higher consciousness is both the source AND the allocator of this notion of "rights". "Rights" comes from no where else that we know of. Therefore I think this faculty is not just important in a discussion on rights and who to assign them to, but paramount to said discussion.



Actually it appears you may be one of the people to whom I refer as this is not accurate.



]

I still dont see what this science has to do with anything.

We assign ourselves rights, historically not always on the basis of conciousness or even of being human. Once upon a time you had to be white, male and a property owner to have rights.

Once upon a time you would not be served in Dublin restaurant if you were working class.

All your talk about sentience and 16 weeks blah blah blah is basically asking the how many angels are on the head of a pin. Life is a continuum and full of infinite regressions, you cant seriously be pinning your whole argument on that?

And as for what we are able to observe in a feotus at 16 weeks or earlier, how can you be certain that what you call sentience, whatever that is, is there but that the observer's faculities are not acute enough to be "conscience", "sentient" of it?

nozzferrahhtoo

Yes, exactly. “We assign ourselves rights”. It comes from us and nowhere else. You are half way there with me now.

What part of us does that? Our foot? Our teeth?

No clearly not. It is our faculty of higher consciousness that does it. I do not think it a leap therefore to say it is TO this faculty we assign them.

Therefore, since every bit of science we have on the development of the fetus tells us this faculty is entirely and wholly absent all the way up to 20 weeks on average, but certainly to 16, then what is it exactly you think we are assigning rights to?

There simply is nothing there to assign rights to, except a blue print for that something. Like I said before, the instructions for making an IKEA wardrobe are not themselves an IKEA wardrobe. Similarly the fetus contains all the instructions for forming a human mind, but all the way up to 16 weeks it just has not done so.

The Corinthian

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

As I said, you have no wholly left the discussion at hand and have made this entirely about me, while degrading only yourself by throwing out insults.

You have attempted to dismiss an argument based upon an error that you yourself have made elsewhere. When this was put to you, you ignored the rebuttal, so what do you want me to think?

I literally have nothing to learn from this and so as I said I thank you for your time thus far, but I require no more of it at this time. Next time I see anything relevant to the actual topic, you can be sure I will reply again. However pulling me up on using a word in the same way as 100s of people all over the place is not likely to keep this thread moving especially when after doing so you call OTHER people pedantic.

I pulled you up on using conciousness incorrectly, but I did not attempt to cynically use that error to my advantage because even if you used the wrong word, I understood what you were trying to say. Had I attempted to dismiss your entire argument on the basis of your misuse of the word, then I certainly would have been a pedant.

Then I did the same with DNA (another word misused my many), but instead you sought to turn this to your advantage, even though it was evident that I meant genome and simply used the wrong term.

Indeed, all of us have technically been misusing the term foetus too!

But perhaps you do not have anything more to learn. As I mooted earlier, when someone doggedly sticks to an unwieldy position, even though it is evident that it is likely flawed, then chances are that they are more interested in maintaining what that position protects, rather than learn anything new.

metrovelvet

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Yes, exactly. “We assign ourselves rights”. It comes from us and nowhere else. You are half way there with me now.

What part of us does that? Our foot? Our teeth?

No clearly not. It is our faculty of higher consciousness that does it. I do not think it a leap therefore to say it is TO this faculty we assign them.

Therefore, since every bit of science we have on the development of the fetus tells us this faculty is entirely and wholly absent all the way up to 20 weeks on average, but certainly to 16, then what is it exactly you think we are assigning rights to?

There simply is nothing there to assign rights to, except a blue print for that something. Like I said before, the instructions for making an IKEA wardrobe are not themselves an IKEA wardrobe. Similarly the fetus contains all the instructions for forming a human mind, but all the way up to 16 weeks it just has not done so.

Look, a two year old does not have the ability to assign him or herself rights? Can you kill a two year old? A six month old? Eight year old? At seven, the age of reason?

The Corinthian

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

It is our faculty of higher consciousness that does it.

Could you define "our faculty of higher consciousness"?

nozzferrahhtoo

metrovelvet wrote: »

Look, a two year old does not have the ability to assign him or herself rights? Can you kill a two year old? A six month old? Eight year old? At seven, the age of reason?

Yes but I talk about the faculty not the ability to use it. At no point do I suggest the ability to use it has anything to do with this, otherwise I would have to start building sub clause after sub clause for people in comas, people of reduced mental capabilities and so on.

The whole realm of rights revolves around the "person". Not the DNA. Not the limbs. Not the Organs. It is personhood alone we assign rights to.

A 2 year old HAS this faculty/attribute. A 16 week old developing piece of DNA does not.

nozzferrahhtoo

The Corinthian wrote: »

Could you define "our faculty of higher consciousness"?

Yes. That part of us which comes up with this notion of rights in the first place.

metrovelvet

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

A 2 year old HAS this faculty/attribute. A 16 week old developing piece of DNA does not.

1. How do you know that?

2. Why does this give you your rights more than a brain and a heartbeat does?

nozzferrahhtoo

metrovelvet wrote: »

1. How do you know that?

As I said before, we know many of the things that this faculty just can not exist without. At this point in the development all of those things are absent. I gave one example before and citing a paper that is worth reading.

metrovelvet wrote: »

2. Why does this give you your rights more than a brain and a heartbeat does?

Because we do not assign rights to brains and heartbeats. We assign it to the "person". The person does not exist before 16 weeks because those parts of the brain that create this have not even started to form. Not that they are there but not switched on, not that they are there but not working properly. Those things are simply not there at all and if they are not there the person would appear not to be either.

The Corinthian

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Yes but I talk about the faculty not the ability to use it.

LOL. Sounds like the 'potential' argument.

A 16 week old developing piece of DNA does not.

Are you suggesting that DNA is 'developing' at 16 weeks?

metrovelvet

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

As I said before, we know many of the things that this faculty just can not exist without. At this point in the development all of those things are absent. I gave one example before and citing a paper that is worth reading.



Because we do not assign rights to brains and heartbeats. We assign it to the "person". The person does not exist before 16 weeks because those parts of the brain that create this have not even started to form. Not that they are there but not switched on, not that they are there but not working properly. Those things are simply not there at all and if they are not there the person would appear not to be either.

How do you know they are not there?

Are you suggesting that you are not taking away their life but their right to evolve?

Your arguments are about as clear as downtown manhattan on the morning of 911.

The Corinthian

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Yes. That part of us which comes up with this notion of rights in the first place.

That's a bit vague. Please be more specific.

Noffles

How many times has this been argued now... I actually gave in arguing and am happy in the thought that a girl / woman can nip over to Blighty have a quick "procedure" and get back to normal... whew... thanks Blighty!!

nozzferrahhtoo

metrovelvet wrote: »

Are you suggesting that you are not taking away their life but their right to evolve?

Hmmm. I can not even fathom why you are asking me this. How can I be taking away somethings rights when I have been saying so far that at this stage I beleive them to HAVE no rights.

I can not take away what something does not have.

My whole position is based on the fact that there is a part of us from which rights come, and it is this same part that we assign rights to. We know the building blocks required for this part of us to exist and we know that at certain stages these blocks are not there.

We can not have this notion of rights without this structure, we can not have this structure without those blocks, and those blocks are not there.

nozzferrahhtoo

The Corinthian wrote: »

That's a bit vague. Please be more specific.

It is specific enough for my purposes, as you will see in my post immediately before this one. If you wish to have it defined more specifically above and beyond MY requirements for defining it then I invite you to read more about it.

I would suggest starting with Daniel Dennetts "Consciousness explained". Not just because it is a good book for anyone from the layman to the hobbyist, but because the list of references and further reading in the back of it is indispensable as a starting point to learn more.

AARRRGH

Does anyone think if the fetus had a choice it'd choose to be aborted?

Turtwig

AARRRGH wrote: »

Does anyone think if the fetus had a choice it'd choose to be aborted?

Depends on whether its will to survive has developed yet.

nozzferrahhtoo

metrovelvet wrote: »

How do you know they are not there?

Ok I have a few minutes to donate to you and I will gladly work with you on this one as it seems to be a sticking point and although I have answered it a few times, I have only done so briefly and it is not sticking.

It is hard to answer without getting to into the science of it, and after you saying that our gravity comes from the earth spinning I think maybe science might not be the be the best way to proceed.

So let me put it another way completely. When a person is lying on a hospital table dead, how do you "know" they are dead? How do you "know" they are not in there somewhere? How is it we can definitively say that there simply is no person there any more? Are we guessing or what?

No, we know what to look for. We can measure electrical patterns, brain waves, the function of certain pieces of the brain. We can definitively as science ever allows us say that the person is gone, dead, just not there any more.

What I am saying about the fetus therefore is this: Not only are those same things like brain waves and electrical pulses and ingredients not there... the places they COME FROM are not there either.

So if you can be in ANY way sure a dead person really is dead on an operating table, I can be doubly sure that this fetus is too.**

**Dead in the sense of the person, not in the sense of completely dead, before someone pedantically jumps on that one. I am aware the fetus is BIOLOGICALLY alive (sure so is an amoeba) and is in the process of attempting to build those parts of the brain to which I refer. The fact is however, it hasnt built them yet in the 16 to 20 week area.

The Corinthian

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

It is specific enough for my purposes, as you will see in my post immediately before this one. If you wish to have it defined more specifically above and beyond MY requirements for defining it then I invite you to read more about it.

Actually, I want to know your understanding of it, how you would define it and, finally, apply it in this context.

The Corinthian

Malty_T wrote: »

Depends on whether its will to survive has developed yet.

How do you measure that? An infant has a will to survive, but pretty much on the same level as an animal. Intellectually it has very little self awareness. Does this count, and if so, should we not afford similar rights to all animals with comparable will to survive? Or if not, should we allow infanticide?

nozzferrahhtoo

The Corinthian wrote: »

Are you suggesting that DNA is 'developing' at 16 weeks?

Quite simply no, I am not. I am inferring that it is DOING the developing.

nozzferrahhtoo

The Corinthian wrote: »

Actually, I want to know your understanding of it, how you would define it and, finally, apply it in this context.

Again I have made a point and I have defined it enough to satisfy the point I am making.

In fact if you go back to my first post you will see that my entire position is to say that because we are so unable to define it, what it is, how it works and why that I base my entire position on finding instead a point in time in the development when it is wholly absent. Which I have done.

metrovelvet

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Ok I have a few minutes to donate to you and I will gladly work with you on this one as it seems to be a sticking point and although I have answered it a few times, I have only done so briefly and it is not sticking.

It is hard to answer without getting to into the science of it, and after you saying that our gravity comes from the earth spinning I think maybe science might not be the be the best way to proceed.

So let me put it another way completely. When a person is lying on a hospital table dead, how do you "know" they are dead? How do you "know" they are not in there somewhere? How is it we can definitively say that there simply is no person there any more? Are we guessing or what?

No, we know what to look for. We can measure electrical patterns, brain waves, the function of certain pieces of the brain. We can definitively as science ever allows us say that the person is gone, dead, just not there any more.

What I am saying about the fetus therefore is this: Not only are those same things like brain waves and electrical pulses and ingredients not there... the places they COME FROM are not there either.

So if you can be in ANY way sure a dead person really is dead on an operating table, I can be doubly sure that this fetus is too.**

**Dead in the sense of the person, not in the sense of completely dead, before someone pedantically jumps on that one. I am aware the fetus is BIOLOGICALLY alive (sure so is an amoeba) and is in the process of attempting to build those parts of the brain to which I refer. The fact is however, it hasnt built them yet in the 16 to 20 week area.

You know someone has died when their heart stops beating.

You keep saying the scientist know and the technology can detect the part of the brain that has this very fuzzy conciousness you keep talking about but I am asking you how you know the scientists and the technology are sentient enough to be able to detect and interpret this fuzzy term you keep talking about.

Turtwig

metrovelvet wrote: »

You know someone has died when their heart stops beating.

I know this is dragging a thread off topic, but I'm glad you're not a doctor.
The heart can stop beating, but the person can still come through again.

Btw this is a peculiar statement to make because, according to Google, the foetus's heart doesn't start beating until Week 3 - So a foetus is not a living person until then ?

You keep saying the scientist know and the technology can detect the part of the brain that has this very fuzzy conciousness you keep talking about but I am asking you how you know the scientists and the technology are sentient enough to be able to detect and interpret this fuzzy term you keep talking about.

Basically you're asking "How does science work?"

Michael Marshall, Newscientist. wrote:

Science works in the sense that, if we chuck out all the ideas about a subject that don't fit the available evidence, we end up with a small number of remaining ideas (ideally just one) that do fit the evidence, and we tentatively accept them as being, possibly, not wrong. Then we try and get some more evidence.

Some of our theories now do very well, in the sense that we don't find any evidence that contradicts them, but in a sense they still have to be thought of as tentative.

This is what the philosopher Karl Popper called "falsifiability". If a theory can be disproved by observable evidence, then it is science, and if it can't, then it isn't.

In other words, science can tell us that a theory conforms to all the available evidence, but that still doesn't tell us whether the theory is really, definitely, for all time, 100% categorically true. You can get that sort of certainty in maths, but science is always about a balance of probabilities.

That balance can be incredibly strongly weighted in one direction - so for instance we are all very confident indeed that the nucleus of a carbon atom contains six protons, not 17 or 43 - but it's still about probabilities.

So in a sense the answer is: "science works because it knows its limits".

metrovelvet

Malty_T wrote: »

I know this is dragging a thread off topic, but I'm glad you're not a doctor.
The heart can stop beating, but the person can still be through again.

Btw this is a peculiar statement to make because, according to Google, the foetus's heart doesn't start beating until Week 3.



Basically you're asking "How does science work?"

No Im not a doctor nor ever said I was. But I knew my dad was dead after his eyes rolled up and his heart stopped beating.

I should remind you this is humanties, not the biology forum.

Can you provide that google link?

The Corinthian

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Again I have made a point and I have defined it enough to satisfy the point I am making.

I disagree. To begin with I need to question this as your understanding of the concepts in question may be inaccurate - after all, while 'hundreds of people' on the Interweb may confuse consciousness with sentience, someone who is apparently better versed in the subject (given the extensive study they've made) really should not do so.

Secondly, I raise in response to the next part of your reply.

In fact if you go back to my first post you will see that my entire position is to say that because we are so unable to define it, what it is, how it works and why that I base my entire position on finding instead a point in time in the development when it is wholly absent. Which I have done.

How can you tell something that you cannot even define is absent?

The Corinthian

Malty, whenever you get a chance, I'd really appreciate clarification on 'the will to survive'.

nozzferrahhtoo

Metrovelvet, no the heart stopping is not a factor in deciding when death occours. It, like Malty said, can restart etc. The reason we die when the heart stops is the other parts of us that require blood and oxygen IN TURN die because the heart is not supplying them any more.

Not to mention that we perform many heart transplants. It is not to the heart we assign rights is it? Or if I get someones heart do I get all their rights too??? No clearly something else attains rights and something else has to die before they are lost.

nozzferrahhtoo

Corinthian I have defined my terms adequetly to support the points I am making. There is not a conversation on the planet you could not end or "win" by simply going into it, picking a term from your antagonist, and asking him to define it to YOUR unattainable standards until you reach a point when he can go no further and you just claim their argument is negated.

My argument is targeted at that part of us that gives us the human mind, human consciousness, sentience, creativity and personhood. That part of us that comes up with this notion of rights in the first place. I do not have to understand everything and anything there is to know about it to know when it is entirely absent.

metrovelvet

^ Your terms and definitions remind me of that time that the US Supreme Court locked themselves away and watched hours and hours of pornography trying to come up with a definition for it. One of them said [I think it was Sandra Day O'Connor] "I know it when I see it."

I guess for you, sentience, higher conciousness, whatever it is you are talking about, is a case of "i know it when I dont see it."

Not too convincing.

drkpower

Nozz, you clearly have given the issue a great degree of thought but your theory/manner of rationalising your viewpoint still smacks of formulating a theory to come to a given conclusion. Of course, we all do that from time to time and it is not unacceptable per se, but it seems to have resulted in a number of unsurmountable difficulties that you cannot overcome.

1. You, nor anyone else, cannot really determine what it is that constitutes sentience/conciousness. You certainly have not made it clear to many here what you mean by this concept and, most importantly, how you know if it is present.

You seem to use 2 constructs to protect you here; one, 'you know it when you see it', which isnt good enough in this particular situation, and two, 'I use a robust buffer of "x weeks" to ensure that no foetus which has gained sentience/conciousness is killed' - again, thats admirable but ainty

When asked about those at the other extreme of life, who may have lost sentience/conciousness, you say that they deserve protection because 'the faculty is still there, it is just not operating normally'. That is simply dishonest; it is a false construct. It is creating a moral framework to suit a particular end. If the 'faculty' is not functioning in any practical way, and will never function in a practical way, why do you give a 100 year old who has lost all sentience/conciousnes of any practical value protection when it does not have (to any practical extent) that which makes it human.

2. But, most importantly, your sentience/conciousness argument is based on the premise that that is the quality upon which we, as a species, as societies, assign ourselves rights, and that therefore, if an entity has not acquired this quality, it does not attract protection.
But is that really the sole basis upon which rights are assigned? Im afraid it is not. Assuming you are correct scientifically about the development of sentience/conciousness (at somewhere between 12-20 weeks), why is it that every society that I am aware of, even those with liberal abortion laws, does assign rights to the pre-12 week foetus?

And they all do; its just that they assign less rights to the early foetus. Most states that have abortion justify it on the 'balance of rights' argument, that the mother's right to privacy/bodily integrity etc is greater than the foetal right to life. But they all assign rights to the early foetus, even the embryo, which I think we can all agree, probably doesnt have sentience/conciousness, whatever that is!

If you were right, the early foetus would have been assigned no rights by society. But almost every 'society' does the opposite, so clearly there is far more to the acquisition of rights than your concept of conciousness/sentience; membership of the human race, unique DNA, many emotional, moral, ethical and scientific factors go into the acquisition of rights. But one thing is clear, almost all Western societies do assign rights to the early foetus.

Your theory is admirable but suffers from all theories which attempt to come to a nice clear result which says: 'this one is a life, protect it; this one is nothing; discard it'. The black and white answer isnt there; i admire you for trying to find it, but you aren't quite there yet and Im afraid, I dont think you are going to get there.:rolleyes:

The Corinthian

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Corinthian I have defined my terms adequetly to support the points I am making. There is not a conversation on the planet you could not end or "win" by simply going into it, picking a term from your antagonist, and asking him to define it to YOUR unattainable standards until you reach a point when he can go no further and you just claim their argument is negated.

I'm afraid I do not believe that you have defined your terms adequately enough to support your position. I do agree that there is not a conversation on the planet you could not end or "win" by simply going into it, but you appear to be going to the other extreme in that you are effectively rejecting any attempt to go into it. To date, in this discussion, you have dismissed, ignored and even deflected any criticisms. You don't even want to define your position and are asking us to effectively take it 'on faith' that it is correct. Indeed, suggestion (deflection) that we should all go off and read a particular book is highly reminiscent of religiously orientated arguments where I have been told that if I wanted to inform myself further I could read the Bible.

It's what I would call the "[pay no attention to the] man behind the curtain" defence.

Of course many arguments cannot be definitively decided - I have already conceded this - that is why, for example, we have the principle of 'beyond reasonable doubt' in law - thus you must believe that my "unattainable standards" must be unreasonable and if so you really have to put forward why.

Ultimately, rather than risk my 'unattainable' standards, you will not test your position against any standards - and that really does not wash in debate.

My argument is targeted at that part of us that gives us the human mind, human consciousness, sentience, creativity and personhood. That part of us that comes up with this notion of rights in the first place. I do not have to understand everything and anything there is to know about it to know when it is entirely absent.

I'm not asking you to understand or explain everything, but you're giving us precious little. You believe in something, but refuse to define what that something is outside of the most vague of terms. Even if we are to accept that a person is defined by "human mind, human consciousness, sentience, creativity and personhood" (the last being a tautology), you repeatedly ignore that this definition alone is insufficient. Young infants lack both sentience and creativity. Adults can lose any or all of these qualities, through illness, accident or just the effects of old age. Which means you need to add caveats or at least better define your position, because as it stands it simply does not, well, stand.

It's pretty difficult to ignore these apparent flaws and just as difficult for one to accept a position that requires multiple caveats to deal with them. And that is before we even consider if your basic premise has merit to begin with. And so asking us to take your word on it just is not good enough.

metrovelvet

I believe it used to be known as a soul.

PomBear

Can I ask people that are pro choice, when do you believe life starts?

nozzferrahhtoo

drkpower wrote: »

1. You, nor anyone else, cannot really determine what it is that constitutes sentience/conciousness.

We have a lot of information on that, even though we do not know everything. However I do not see the issue here. We know which electrical activity in the brain for example is connected to it. This is just one of many examples I could give.

Through much testing of these patterns, measuring of them, disruption of them and analysis of damaged brains we know much about which parts constitute "self" "language" "Love" and more. We know if you disrupt or kill these things that all this stuff disappears.

These things are not just disrupted in the fetus, they are NOT PRESENT and in many cases the things that generate them are NOT PRESENT either.

I feel no qualms or impotentcy therefore in saying I am in a very safe position that this part of our being is not present at this time in the fetus. All the science backs me up on this and no science goes against me at all that I have found. Nothing is 100% in science but if all the evidence supports your conclusion and not a jot goes against it then you are on very safe ground.

drkpower wrote: »

When asked about those at the other extreme of life, who may have lost sentience/conciousness, you say that they deserve protection because 'the faculty is still there, it is just not operating normally'. That is simply dishonest; it is a false construct.

Not at all. I feel that upon attaining rights that one holds on to them until they are dead. We also respect the fact they once had rights once they get them. Otherwise why do we respect, for example, a persons burial wishes or donor transplant wishes? Why not just do whatever the hell we want with their body when they are dead?

No, we do not do this because we recognise once we attain rights that we retain them regardless and we even pander to a persons wishes in retrospect after they have died. I am perfectly happy with this idea that once someone attains rights that we should hopefully never have to take them away again.

drkpower wrote: »

2. But, most importantly, your sentience/conciousness argument is based on the premise that that is the quality upon which we, as a species, as societies, assign ourselves rights, and that therefore, if an entity has not acquired this quality, it does not attract protection.

You make it sound like I am the one elevating the importance of this aspect in this discussion. This is not so. It elevates ITSELF. If it was not for this faculty we would not even have this discussion, this notion of rights, or even care either way on any of this. This faculty therefore is not just important in this discussion for me, it is unavoidably paramount. So your accusations that I concluded first and built an argument to support it is false. I have no choice but to elevate this aspect of our being as it is solely the most important attribute of the discussion. This notion came to me first. My conclusions on abortion led from it and not the other way around like you claim.

drkpower wrote: »

why is it that every society that I am aware of, even those with liberal abortion laws, does assign rights to the pre-12 week foetus?

I do not mean to be rude in saying this but I am arguing MY position. If you want to ask why someone else holds another position then kindly ask them, not me. I am arguing for how I think rights SHOULD be allocated. No more. No less and if other people want to allocate it pre-sentience then I would like to hear their basis for same.

nozzferrahhtoo

The Corinthian wrote: »

you appear to be going to the other extreme in that you are effectively rejecting any attempt to go into it.

False. I quoted sources of science papers that show when activity starts in the brain, how it forms and over what time scale. Not just science opinion, but peer reviewed real science and I can quote you more if you like, but no one has apparently read the first one yet even.

We know what aspects of the brain gives us "language" "self" "Love" "memory" and more and we know this from observation of normal brains, disruption of normal brains, and analysis of disruption in other brains that were disrupted and damaged not intentionally.

It is not that these things are just outside normal parameters in the time scale I gave you. It is not even that those things are not there in the time scale I gave you. But the things that generate them are not even there.

To use an analogy to radio, I am not saying the radio waves are not what we expect, or that the transmitter is powered down. The transmitter is not even there and people on here are essentially asking me "How do you KNOW the radio waves aren't there anyway??" which is patently ridiculous.

What part of any of that you think I am expecting to be taken "on faith" is really unclear.

Since ALL the science I have read shows that higher human consciousness is not present and NO science I have read goes against that, I think I am BEYOND "beyond reasonable doubt" in this. However this is entirely falsifiable if you can show me a source of the human mind outside the brain which exists during early fetal development. I am agog to hear your science for this. Show me a study that analyses ideas, rights and beliefs at the level of the brain coming from a part of the brain that exists in the fetus pre-16 weeks and I will re-evaluate my position entirely.

Meanwhile however we HAVE real scientists releasing real papers studying beliefs and ideas at the level of the brain, and they know exactly what part of the brain these aspects come from while they are doing it. As a random citation of this, since I am the only one here who apparently can cite any science:

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0007272

Here they directly observe the operation of ideas and beleifs at the level of the brain. Do you think this activity is present in the fetus? Do you honestly even think the parts of the brain that GENERATE such activity are even present? If you do, then I am AGOG to hear your citations for it. Truly agog.

The Corinthian

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

These things are not just disrupted in the fetus, they are NOT PRESENT and in many cases the things that generate them are NOT PRESENT either.

I don't want to point out the obivious flaw in this, but in the case of brain damage (caused by whatever means) these things are destroyed and thus also NOT PRESENT.

I do not mean to be rude in saying this but I am arguing MY position. If you want to ask why someone else holds another position then kindly ask them, not me. I am arguing for how I think rights SHOULD be allocated. No more. No less and if other people want to allocate it pre-sentience then I would like to hear their basis for same.

If you don't want someone to question your opinion, don't give it.