Legalise abortion

The Corinthian

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

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.

Please stop deflecting. I have repeatedly sought a definition and questioned your need for caveats to hold that definition together.

Indeed, if we are talking about brain activity, then I have to question what you mean. Originally you spoke of consciousness, then sentience and now brain activity. Which one is it?

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.

You'll find that brain damage will often destroy the 'transmitter'. Not there any more, I'm afraid.

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

Your definition. You are incredibly fuzzy on what exactly is being measured and have been hopping from one term to another repeatedly.

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.

What do you mean by 'higher' human consciousness? Seriously, how can you set criteria you do not even seem to be able to define?

Even if you could define what exactly (roughly would be an improvement), it still does not rebut criticism that you need multiple caveats to deal with cases that allow unintended consequences - and it is this that you are deflecting.

drkpower

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

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.

That's not rude, it is a helpful clarification. You said along the way that 'we' (society) assigned rights on the basis of the conciousness/sentience and that, on that basis, when conciousness/sentience was not present, a foetus had no rights.

I am very glad to hear that that you are only claiming that it is your view that conciousness/sentience is the only basis of rights. That's fine. You are, of course, wrong. Rights are in actuality and should be properly assigned based on other criteria also, membership of the human species being one such important criteria. Every society assigns this entity a variety of rights, from a little to a lot.

Your suggestion that conciousness/sentience should be the only basis for the assignment of rights is interesting, but is fundamentally flawed as many people have pointed out; of course, dont take the word of the people on this forum's word for it - that no society anywhere has decided to base its valuation of the embryo/foetus only on the presence or absence of conciousness/sentience is strong enough evidence for me that it is a fundamentally flawed idea. Obviously they havent had you as a special moral/science advisor though, so i suppose there is still time.:eek:

The Corinthian

drkpower wrote: »

Your suggestion that conciousness/sentience should be the only basis for the assignment of rights is interesting, but is fundamentally flawed as many people have pointed out

In fairness, while this was his original assertion, he has subsequently added the word 'human' (which I would take to be homo sapian) to his argument.

drkpower

The Corinthian wrote: »

In fairness, while this was his original assertion, he has subsequently added the word 'human' (which I would take to be homo sapian) to his argument.

Only to the extent that he is referrring to 'human' conciousness/sentience; it still remains, in his view, the only factor that confers rights upon an entity. The mere fact of being a member of the human species, does not, apparently, confer anything, anything at all. It seems that is a totally irrelevent consideration.

That is a notion of rights that no other society promotes, yet Nozz states repeatedly and blankly that rights derive only from human conciousness/sentience and, apparently, nothing else. It is how he can completely disregard any value in an early foetus/embryo.

Don't get me wrong, conciousness/sentience is a factor we should look at (so long as we can satisfactorily determine what it means and where it exists), but it is only one factor. Nozz views it as the only factor; and that is a deeply flawed perspective, thankfully rejected by all societies of which I am aware.

Kooli

drkpower wrote: »

Only to the extent that he is referrring to 'human' conciousness/sentience; it still remains, in his view, the only factor that confers rights upon an entity. The mere fact of being a member of the human species, does not, apparently, confer anything, anything at all. It seems that is a totally irrelevent consideration.

That is a notion of rights that no other society promotes, yet Nozz states repeatedly and blankly that rights derive only from human conciousness/sentience and, apparently, nothing else. It is how he can completely disregard any value in an early foetus/embryo.

Don't get me wrong, conciousness/sentience is a factor we should look at (so long as we can satisfactorily determine what it means and where it exists), but it is only one factor. Nozz views it as the only factor; and that is a deeply flawed perspective, thankfully rejected by all societies of which I am aware.

I agree with Nozz actually that consciousness/sentience is a much more sensible means to attribute rights than membership of a certain species.
I don't really care if other societies have not used that criterion up to now - that alone is not a reason it is flawed. If you have other reasons it is flawed, then fine, but precendent shouldn't be one of them.

drkpower

Kooli wrote: »

I agree with Nozz actually that consciousness/sentience is a much more sensible means to attribute rights than membership of a certain species.
I don't really care if other societies have not used that criterion up to now - that alone is not a reason it is flawed. If you have other reasons it is flawed, then fine, but precendent shouldn't be one of them.

To use it to attribute rights is very valuable.
To value it highly in such an evaluation is appropriate.
To use it as the only criteria to attribute rights is flawed.
A question as complex and fundamental as what confers rights upon somebody is incredibly complex; it is never likely to be solved by the use of one single criteria.

And I dont use precedent as a reason; I use it as persuasive support. The fact that all modern societies essentially agree with me rather than Nozz that doesnt necessarily make me right, but it makes it more likely!

Turtwig

drkpower wrote: »

The fact that all modern societies essentially agree with me rather than Nozz that doesnt necessarily make me right, but it makes it more likely!

????

Saint Ruth

rantyface wrote: »

How about neutering poor people? They did it in India...

They did it in Sweden up to the early 70s...And as everyone knows Sweden is the most civilised of countries...

The Corinthian

Kooli wrote: »

I agree with Nozz actually that consciousness/sentience is a much more sensible means to attribute rights than membership of a certain species.
I don't really care if other societies have not used that criterion up to now - that alone is not a reason it is flawed. If you have other reasons it is flawed, then fine, but precendent shouldn't be one of them.

There are numerous reasons why such a definition is potentially flawed. The most obvious one is that no one seems to know what it means, even you have referred to it using vague consciousness-slash-sentience terminology and Nozz refuses to define it beyond the most general of terms.

Secondly, even if we fix upon a definition of consciousness/sentience, unintentional scenarios begin to creep in. Other species posses consciousness and (apparently, in the case of dolphins) sentience - requiring a caveat limiting the right to our species.

We can lose either consciousness/sentience - if we live long enough, we will lose 'higher' human consciousness as Nozz called it. Some are born so mentally handicapped that it is arguable that they posses it (depending on what the definition is). And this too then requires another "once you have it you can't lose it" caveat.

Then, you have to consider that most of our 'higher' faculties do not actually develop until long after birth. Young infants, for lack of a better term, are not sentient. Do we lower the bar to simple consciousness, then or add a "you've been born" caveat?

Before long the whole thing starts getting messy and resembles the sort of convoluted astronomical orbits that were being calculated when, for largely ideological/religious reasons, the Earth was 'thought' to be at the centre of our solar system.

Whenever that happens to a theory under test or review in science, you abandon it and go back to the drawing board. If you don't, it probably means you want it to be right rather than it actually being right.

The Corinthian

rantyface wrote: »

How about neutering poor people? They did it in India.

If fairness, they did get a transistor radio when they did.

Malty_T wrote: »

????

Malty, welcome back! I'm still waiting on you to clarify what you meant by 'the will to survive'.

Kooli

The Corinthian wrote: »

Other species posses consciousness and (apparently, in the case of dolphins) sentience - requiring a caveat limiting the right to our species.

We can lose either consciousness/sentience - if we live long enough, we will lose 'higher' human consciousness as Nozz called it. Some are born so mentally handicapped that it is arguable that they posses it (depending on what the definition is). And this too then requires another "once you have it you can't lose it" caveat.

Then, you have to consider that most of our 'higher' faculties do not actually develop until long after birth. Young infants, for lack of a better term, are not sentient. Do we lower the bar to simple consciousness, then or add a "you've been born" caveat?

Well actually there would be no need for these 'caveats' if sentience was the only criterion for assigning rights. My point is that membership of the human race is not a valid criterion, so of course I wouldn't add a caveat that excludes dolphins.

My point is that perhaps an adult healthy chimp should have more rights than a foetus, or a severely mentally handicapped human or an adult in a state of severe brain damage. I don't actually believe that just because someone is human, they are granted rights above all others.
(and yes, I have been reading Peter Singer as you can probably tell!!)

The Corinthian

Kooli wrote: »

Well actually there would be no need for these 'caveats' if sentience was the only criterion for assigning rights. My point is that membership of the human race is not a valid criterion, so of course I wouldn't add a caveat that excludes dolphins.

In this you would differ with Nozz who did specify humans.

My point is that perhaps an adult healthy chimp should have more rights than a foetus, or a severely mentally handicapped human or an adult in a state of severe brain damage. I don't actually believe that just because someone is human, they are granted rights above all others.
(and yes, I have been reading Peter Singer as you can probably tell!!)

Well, I can't say I agree with your position, but it is more consistent than Nozz's.

Kooli

The Corinthian wrote: »

In this you would differ with Nozz who did specify humans.

Well, I can't say I agree with your position, but it is more consistent than Nozz's.

Oh right. I'll admit I didn't read the 20 pages, just joined in at the end!

metrovelvet

Kooli wrote: »

My point is that perhaps an adult healthy chimp should have more rights than a foetus,

Why? Assuming a healthy foetus here.

Kooli

metrovelvet wrote: »

Why? Assuming a healthy foetus here.

Because I'm applying the criterion of sentience.

If a woman chooses to abort a foetus, there is less harm and suffering caused to that 'living being' than if the same women chose to kill and adult chimp. Simple as that really.

metrovelvet

Kooli wrote: »

Because I'm applying the criterion of sentience.

If a woman chooses to abort a foetus, there is less harm and suffering caused to that 'living being' than if the same women chose to kill and adult chimp. Simple as that really.

How do you know that?

Kooli

metrovelvet wrote: »

How do you know that?

I would imagine it's fairly established fact that an adult chimp has more awareness, consciousness, intelligence, independence and emotional capacity than a foetus. Is that not a given?!

metrovelvet

Kooli wrote: »

I would imagine it's fairly established fact that an adult chimp has more awareness, consciousness, intelligence, independence and emotional capacity than a foetus. Is that not a given?!

I dont know. Thats why Im asking you. How do you know that? But ok, given that;s true. Given that an adult chimp probably has more independence, awareness, intelligence, than in infant, possibly even my two year old [independence definitley the chimp wins there] up to what age can a mother or father kill her child and it be ok with you? Or kill someone else's child? Up to what age?

Kooli

metrovelvet wrote: »

I dont know. Thats why Im asking you. How do you know that? But ok, given that;s true. Given that an adult chimp probably has more independence, awareness, intelligence, than in infant, possibly even my two year old [independence definitley the chimp wins there] up to what age can a mother or father kill her child and it be ok with you? Or kill someone else's child? Up to what age?

I'm just gonna take it as a given if that's OK. I doubt there are any biologists out there who would disagree.

But your next point - of course it wouldn't be 'ok with me' for a parent to kill a two year old child. I presume you know that.
So then I guess it's simpler to leave aside independence, intelligence etc. and go just with consciousness. So I'm back where I started! A baby is conscious of itself and it's surroundings. So is a chimp. A foetus is not.

I don't really see the point of your argument unless you really believe there is a 'slippery slope' where if the government agreed to allow abortions up to 16 weeks (or whenever) then infanticide would eventually become legal?

metrovelvet

ok so you're cut off point for conciousness is 16 weeke?

1. What is consciousness?

2. How is it signified to an observer?

3. How is its absence measured in utero under 16 weeks?

The Corinthian

Is the criteria consciousness or sentience? You seem to be hopping from one to the other a bit.

If consciousness then not only should such a rule afford chimps rights, but also all other mammals, reptiles - even fish. On the other hand if you mean sentience, then human infants would fail on this.

You see the problem?

Kooli

metrovelvet wrote: »

ok so you're cut off point for conciousness is 16 weeke?

1. What is consciousness?

2. How is it signified to an observer?

3. How is its absence measured in utero under 16 weeks?

How on earth would I know any of those things?

I would entrust that one to the experts in whatever field knows that sort of thing!

And I just picked 16 weeks out of the air, I don't know what it really is.

And even if it went past the point of consciousness a little bit, I still think it's not a huge crime. I simply do not believe that a foetus's right to live should supersede the mother's right to choose. I don't think anyone should be forced to go through pregnancy, birth and motherhood (even if she gives the baby up for adoption, she is still a mother to a child that is out there)- the consequences of that on the mother are far great than the consequences of the abortion on the foetus.

And I may be changing the subject a bit here, and this may have been dealt with in the other 20 pages I haven't read, but the thread title is about 'legalising abortion' so...
I think it's a cop out that we allow abortions, but just not in our country. So making it illegal doesn't stop it happening, it just makes it harder. A cop out.

Kooli

The Corinthian wrote: »

Is the criteria consciousness or sentience? You seem to be hopping from one to the other a bit.

If consciousness then not only should such a rule afford chimps rights, but also all other mammals, reptiles - even fish. On the other hand if you mean sentience, then human infants would fail on this.

You see the problem?

OK maybe what I'm referring to is what you call consciousness.

I'm not sure where I'd set the upper level to be honest i.e. how much consciousness is required before I would say an animal or human cannot be killed.

But I'm fairly comfortable about the lower level i.e. no consciousness = no automatic right to life. (note the word automatic, I don't mean that they have no right to live, just no automatic right to live just because they are a foetus)

metrovelvet

Kooli wrote: »

And even if it went past the point of consciousness a little bit, I still think it's not a huge crime. I simply do not believe that a foetus's right to live should supersede the mother's right to choose. I don't think anyone should be forced to go through pregnancy, birth and motherhood (even if she gives the baby up for adoption, she is still a mother to a child that is out there)- the consequences of that on the mother are far great than the consequences of the abortion on the foetus.

The mother still has her life.

So if you dont think anyone should be forced to go through a pregnancy, then you probably are ok with late term or midterm abortions?

Kooli

metrovelvet wrote: »

The mother still has her life.

So if you dont think anyone should be forced to go through a pregnancy, then you probably are ok with late term or midterm abortions?

I'd feel really uncomfortable about that idea, do you mean that the woman just didn't know she was pregnant until 6-8 months or something?

God, a horrible thought, I don't even know how they work?

If the baby has consciousness, as I have mentioned before, then yes I would have an issue with it.
But I guess you're asking me about it in a more black and white way, from the point of view of legislation (i.e. do I think she should be allowed to have that abortion even though I myself would find it wrong?)

A tough one...I think I'd be leaning towards 'no' to that one except in exceptional circumstances (i.e. risk to mother).

I do feel that a baby who is 8 months old in the womb is actually a baby. That's why I feel consciousness is as good a 'cut off point' as any.

metrovelvet

What I am asking you is this.

On the one hand you talk about conciousness.

But then you back track and its about the mothers right to choose, the mother's right not to be a mother.

So which is it?

Kooli

metrovelvet wrote: »

What I am asking you is this.

On the one hand you talk about conciousness.

But then you back track and its about the mothers right to choose, the mother's right not to be a mother.

So which is it?

I believe that the mother's right to choose whether to be a mother is more important than a non-conscious being's right to life.

I don't think I'm being inconsistent there, unless there is something I am missing?

When it's a conscious being, yes there is a grey area. That's why I feel consciousness is a good 'cut off' to use in terms of legislation, as I said.

metrovelvet

OK I think I get you. Up until the point of consciousness, the mother's right superceded the foetus'. After that, the feotus' superscede the mother's?

Kooli

metrovelvet wrote: »

OK I think I get you. Up until the point of consciousness, the mother's right superceded the foetus'. After that, the feotus' superscede the mother's?

I'm not AS sure about after consciousness, I definitely wouldn't say that the rights of the foetus automatically supercede the rights of the mother.
As I said to the Corinthian:

Kooli wrote: »

I'm not sure where I'd set the upper level to be honest i.e. how much consciousness is required before I would say an animal or human cannot be killed.

But I'm fairly comfortable about the lower level i.e. no consciousness = no automatic right to life. (note the word automatic, I don't mean that they have no right to live, just no automatic right to live just because they are a foetus)

drkpower

Malty_T wrote: »

????

The majority of states accord some rights to the embryo/foetus; therefore they clearly believe there is more complexity to the accrual of rights than merely conciousness/sentience. Fairly straightforward, no?!

Turtwig

The Corinthian wrote: »

Malty, welcome back! I'm still waiting on you to clarify what you meant by 'the will to survive'.

I can't quite find the post now, but ARGHHH questioned whether pro-choicers thought the foetus itself would choose self annihilation. This is a falsely loaded emotional appeal. The answer is obvious. If the foetus didn't want to be alive then it wouldn't be around to answer the question, meaning there is only one possibility : the foetus would opt to choose survival. The question itself has implicitiy implied the answer. This is not a valid argument to make, nor is it helpful to the debate. It applies fully developed human attributes to something that clearly doesn't have them, a naturalistic fallacy of sorts.

My reply was simply to state one attribute that the foetus would need in order to make such a decision - which hopefully you now understand that such a measure of will would ultimately be meaningless. Either it has the will to live, or it hasn't. Eitherway, the question becomes meaningless.

drkpower wrote: »

The fact that all modern societies essentially agree with me rather than Nozz that doesnt necessarily make me right, but it makes it more likely!

drkpower wrote: »

The majority of states accord some rights to the embryo/foetus; therefore they clearly believe there is more complexity to the accrual of rights than merely conciousness/sentience. Fairly straightforward, no?!

You have made the case that because numerous people in the world have thought along the same lines as you then it's more probable that you are correct. If you can explain how this is so then I'm all ears, because frankly I don't think the number of people behind an argument affects it's probability of being true or false.

drkpower

Malty_T wrote: »

I You have made the case that because numerous people in the world have thought along the same lines as you then it's more probable that you are correct. If you can explain how this is so then I'm all ears, because frankly I don't think the number of people behind an argument affects it's probability of being true or false.

What i said was that it was persuasive support, which, of course, it is:

And I dont use precedent as a reason; I use it as persuasive support. The fact that all modern societies essentially agree with me rather than Nozz that doesnt necessarily make me right, but it makes it more likely!

And to suggest that the fact that the bulk of the world's societies come to a certain view is not support for a certain argument is ridiculoius. As I said, it doesnt necessarily make it right, but it is support for that argument. For instance, the irish courts will not make a certain decision because another country's courts have come to that view, they will make their own decision, but they would consider it as support for that position and may be swayed by it.

That is particularly so where a moral/ethical issue such as the proper conferral of rights is concerned, where there is unlikely to be any independently verifiable right or wrong answer. For who decides what rights are conferred on humans other than humans ourselves? So, patently, the prevalent view throughout society is a very significant issue.

nozzferrahhtoo

The Corinthian wrote: »

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.

This is not a flaw for the position I actually espouse. Read again what I am espousing:

Once the faculty develops the person gets rights and holds on to them until death do they part and in some cases even after death in retrospect which is why we respect wishes such as burial wishes, organ donar wishes (or lack of), and inheritance of assets etc etc.

So your "flaw" is actually wholly contained and dealt with within my position by definition. These are people too, regardless of the damage they have suffered and we have no idea at all what the subjective experience of being them is like.

The Corinthian wrote: »

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

Since this is not what I said I do not know what you mean. Please re-read what I wrote and find that I never said I do not want anyone to question my opinion. I said I do not want to pander to people asking ME why someone ELSE holds THEIR opinion. If you want to know this: Ask them.

nozzferrahhtoo

The Corinthian wrote: »

Indeed, if we are talking about brain activity, then I have to question what you mean. Originally you spoke of consciousness, then sentience and now brain activity. Which one is it?

Do not over simplify what I said in order to make it look like I have not answered you. I did not just refer to brain activity, but very specifically to the brain activity that is connected to holding beliefs, having ideas and expressing opinions and to the sense of "self" all of which have been studied at the level of the brain at this point. These things are what are inextricably linked to the "person" and our notion of "rights".

nozzferrahhtoo

drkpower wrote: »

I am very glad to hear that that you are only claiming that it is your view that conciousness/sentience is the only basis of rights. That's fine. You are, of course, wrong. Rights are in actuality and should be properly assigned based on other criteria also, membership of the human species being one such important criteria. Every society assigns this entity a variety of rights, from a little to a lot.

The sarcasm in your post aside, which I have cut out as it demeans no one except yourself, I still think that just saying "You are wrong" is not exactly a killer argument.

I think it is arrogance, and nothing else, to suggest that "Being a member of the human species" is a basis for rights. What is so special about that in and of itself? All that means is that our evolved chain of DNA is slightly different to that of our nearest evolutionary cousins. Big deal. What is it that makes a small shift in binary coded DNA so special in one case and not in the other? Taxonomy appears to me to be no basis on which to base anything of the sort.

Again I repeat that if it was not for this part of us that holds beliefs, opinions, ideas etc there would not BE a notion of rights to discuss in the first place. People here keep suggesting I am some how elevating this faculty in order to make my argument sound. There would not BE rights without it. It elevates itself inescapably therefore and I am forced to go with that whether I like it or not.

And if it is NOT that that we are assigning rights to... what the hell ARE we assigning it to? Bones? Feet? DNA strands that we have subjectively decided are more important than other DNA strands? I honestly can not see what else we assign rights to OR a basis for doing it and no one so far on this thread has shown one except to just declare by fiat "IF it is human, then it gets them"

nozzferrahhtoo

metrovelvet wrote: »

ok so you're cut off point for conciousness is 16 weeke?

Yes, it would be if asked.

metrovelvet wrote: »

1. What is consciousness?

In this context? I would define it as that part of us which holds the sense of self, has ideas, holds opinions on things and can view ideas and hold belief positions on them.

These things are not just known but are measured and experimented on at the level of the brain such as in the example science paper I linked to yesterday where the Neural Correlates of belief were measured and compared.

metrovelvet wrote: »

2. How is it signified to an observer?

An observer does not know what the subjective experience of another is in this sense.

metrovelvet wrote: »

3. How is its absence measured in utero under 16 weeks?

As in the science papers and positions mentioned above, we know the activity that correlates with these aspects of self in the brain. Up to 16 weeks this activity is not only absent, but the generators of them are absent.

To repeat the radio analogy therefore: We know how to look for the radio waves, but those waves are not just absent, the transmitter is not just switched off, but in fact the transmitter has not even been built yet.

drkpower

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

There would not BE rights without it. It elevates itself inescapably therefore and I am forced to go with that whether I like it or not.

The foetus aged 26 weeks or the child aged 3 months may possess your ill-defined notion of sentience or conciousness, but left to their own devices, they would and could never come up with a system of rights either. So there could BE no rights without something else, without something more than which a 26 week/foetus 3 month old possesses. So why do they deserve protection?

You go 'inescapably' down that route simply because you fail to listen and understand that sentience/conciousness is not the only issue to consider. You try and simplify a problem that is not capable of simplification. Its that simple.

nozzferrahhtoo

drkpower wrote: »

The foetus aged 26 weeks or the child aged 3 months may possess your ill-defined notion of sentience or conciousness, but left to their own devices, they would and could never come up with a system of rights either. So there could BE no rights without something else, without something more than which a 26 week/foetus 3 month old possesses. So why do they deserve protection?

You go 'inescapably' down that route simply because you fail to listen and understand that sentience/conciousness is not the only issue to consider. You try and simplify a problem that is not capable of simplification. Its that simple.

The faculty itself exists independent of the ability to use it. You have NO IDEA what the subjective experience of a baby is. If you say you do you are lying, if you think you do you are imagining.

So what their notion of rights or fairness is you are purely imagining. What they think, feel, desire... this is all guess work on your part.

However that ASIDE, the faculty exists in them and it is that faculty which comes up with the notion of rights and there is no evidence of it existing in any other creature anywhere else. It alone out of every part of us is capable of coming up with this idea. I see no problem with stating therefore it is TO this faculty that we assign those rights, regardless of the targets ability to utilize said faculty.

Otherwise what ARE we assigning it to? Taxonomy? Protein that just happened to get lucky and become the DNA we think is special? Human Flesh? Limbs? Organs?

The Corinthian

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Once the faculty develops the person gets rights and holds on to them until death do they part and in some cases even after death in retrospect which is why we respect wishes such as burial wishes, organ donar wishes (or lack of), and inheritance of assets etc etc.

But that is an additional condition, a caveat, to the 'faculty being present'. By that logic no position will ever be false, because all we need do is add caveats to shore up its inadequacies ad infinitum et nausium.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Do not over simplify what I said in order to make it look like I have not answered you.

You did. With multiple choice - that's the problem.

I did not just refer to brain activity, but very specifically to the brain activity that is connected to holding beliefs, having ideas and expressing opinions and to the sense of "self" all of which have been studied at the level of the brain at this point. These things are what are inextricably linked to the "person" and our notion of "rights".

Which would mean they lose those rights if they lose them - but that is covered by one of your 'exceptions to the rule' caveats.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

The faculty itself exists independent of the ability to use it.

Neurologically? Is this proven?

Otherwise what ARE we assigning it to? Taxonomy? Protein that just happened to get lucky and become the DNA we think is special?

It appears more practical, if nothing else, than the rather fuzzy definition of sentience that you have proposed.

nozzferrahhtoo

Another Zebra crossing of a post.

Your obsession with caveats and this notion that a position is somehow void if it is not black and white (as I said before even in murder we have numerous caveats and sub-clauses so I guess we should allow murder huh) aside, I still do not know what you even mean here.

My position from the start has been exactly that. The person gets rights once this faculty develops and holds on to them from then on. Again you seem to be calling my whole argument a caveat to itself as this has been what it has been since the start.

The Corinthian

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Your obsession with caveats and this notion that a position is somehow void if it is not black and white (as I said before even in murder we have numerous caveats and sub-clauses so I guess we should allow murder huh) aside, I still do not know what you even mean here.

No, you said that killing someone can be classified in different ways, and indeed it can. However premeditated murder is still premeditated murder. If it is not premeditated then the definition does not apply.

I also have never suggested that your definition should be black and white. Sometimes you need caveats, because frankly I don't think any of us probably have the right answer and are just trying to find the best one.

However, I have criticized the insistence to stick by a position that requires multiple caveats for what appears to be the sake of it. In science such theories are abandoned because it becomes obvious that they do not stand up.

My position from the start has been exactly that. The person gets rights once this faculty develops and holds on to them from then on. Again you seem to be calling my whole argument a caveat to itself as this has been what it has been since the start.

I've emboldened your definition for greater clarity.

To begin with, unless you accept that someone can be a person without 'this faculty', the use of the term is at best redundant, if not a tautology.

Secondly, your definition does not appear to limit itself to homo sapiens. I'll assume it is implied, rather than being a pedant over it.

Next you have presented an inadequate definition of 'this faculty'. You've fudged your way around numerous terms and at this stage we appear to have narrowed it down to the neurological development of part of the human brain. Is this correct? I'd rather not address this if not. And if not, what do you mean?

Finally, I am at a loss as to why this is any better a criteria for defining rights than possession of an independent genome. At least the latter is far easier to define or even verify.

nozzferrahhtoo

So your caveat therefore is to split things into pre-meditated and not. The not is further split into crimes of passion, self defence and so on. Even pre-meditated has sub definitions of degree etc. There just is not simple rule for ANY of our complex morals and why you feel other people suffer from that when they do not is beyond me and even if they do I do not see it as being relevant. Its a lovely world you paint where every moral or legal issue should have one simple caveat free solution to it, but lovely as it is, it is no more than pure fantasy.

And yes my definition DOES apply to homosapiens in that we are the only species that has this notion of rights or apparently even the ability to form them. However I did ask you in the thread much earlier to name me another species that has concepts like “Right to life” but I appear to be still waiting.

Then again I also asked you to name me another source of the notion of “rights” other than the human mind and I am still waiting for that. Further I asked for another part of the human brain that holds these concepts, beliefs and ideas other than those we already know about and which I have identified as being entirely absent in the fetus. Still waiting for that too.

Any one of the three things I am waiting for would of course force me to re-evaluate my position entirely.

The Corinthian

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

So your caveat therefore is to split things into pre-meditated and not.

No. You're attempting a straw man argument. We are looking at a basic definition. In this killing someone is pretty clear cut and never changes.

Similarly, if there are caveats to my position they occur after the definition of the 'person'. Just because they are a person, this does not automatically mean that they have a right to life, after all - just as if you kill someone does not automatically mean you are guilty of premeditated murder.

And yes my definition DOES apply to homosapiens in that we are the only species that has this notion of rights or apparently even the ability to form them. However I did ask you in the thread much earlier to name me another species that has concepts like “Right to life” but I appear to be still waiting.

As best as I know, no other speices shares our moral framework. Don't you thing though that it is a bit arrogant to expect them to do so?

So long and thanks for all the fish, might make more sense to them.

Then again I also asked you to name me another source of the notion of “rights” other than the human mind and I am still waiting for that.

Actually there's lots of them. I've offered one, unless you've not been paying attention.

Additionally, 'human rights' have been applied on the basis of race, religion and even gender throughout history.

Further I asked for another part of the human brain that holds these concepts, beliefs and ideas other than those we already know about and which I have identified as being entirely absent in the fetus. Still waiting for that too.

I'm sorry, but it is for you to back up your position, not me. I believe your criteria to be as subjective as using race or religion, so where you 'find' it is frankly irrelevant to me.

nozzferrahhtoo

So no, you can not name a single law that doesn’t have sub clauses and caveats etc. I really envy you this simplistic world you live in, but it certainly is not the real world the rest of us are in as ALL our complex moral problems have complex answers to them.

Though I think the caveat you add that the caveats are ok so long as they occur WHEN you want them to (such as after the definition of the person) is exceedingly ironic. Caveats are ok for you and no one else, so long as they occur where YOU want them. Lovely. Glad you’re not in power I have to say.

Glad to see however we agree no other species shares our moral frame work. That is the first step on the path to understanding my position. The second is to ask yourself since it only exists in us, what PART of us is it giving them? You have not named a single other source of them. Rocks? Gods? Trees? I am still waiting for one.

Then when you get the answer to that one, ask yourself what generates that part of us.

And if you find the part that generates that anywhere in the fetus < 16 weeks I will happily re-evaluate my position for you and admit I was wrong this whole time. I would hate to hold any non-falsifiable positions after all.

How about I give you the weekend to come up with one...

The Corinthian

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

So no, you can not name a single law that doesn’t have sub clauses and caveats etc.

You managed to completely ignore my point. How do you do that?

Though I think the caveat you add that the caveats are ok so long as they occur WHEN you want them to (such as after the definition of the person) is exceedingly ironic. Caveats are ok for you and no one else, so long as they occur where YOU want them. Lovely.

Actually, my definition of a person requires no caveats. If we expand the question as to whether they then deserve rights (or not), then caveats can be required, which is why I will not fall on one side or the other of the question. But the initial argument is pretty self contained, unlike yours.

Glad you’re not in power I have to say.

Try not to rely too much on ad hominem attacks.

Glad to see however we agree no other species shares our moral frame work. That is the first step on the path to understanding my position. The second is to ask yourself since it only exists in us, what PART of us is it giving them? You have not named a single other source of them. Rocks? Gods? Trees? I am still waiting for one.

You ignored, or perhaps did not understand, my rebuttal. What's so special about our moral framework? Dolphins may have their own and we are simply not able to comprehend it.

Then when you get the answer to that one, ask yourself what generates that part of us.

Are you so sure that people generate their own moral framework, or that it is imprinted upon them?

And if you find the part that generates that anywhere in the fetus < 16 weeks I will happily re-evaluate my position for you and admit I was wrong this whole time. I would hate to hold any non-falsifiable positions after all.

Details of that 'part' and what it 'generates' please. You're speaking in far too many vagaries.

metrovelvet

This discussion is reminding of driving around the cartesian city of Montpellier. Painfully rational city, but you spend many many kilometres getting nowhere.

drkpower

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

However that ASIDE, the faculty exists in them and it is that faculty which comes up with the notion of rights and there is no evidence of it existing in any other creature anywhere else.

You still dont get it!
You seem to think that this faculty just exists in the brain and that therefore when that faculty appears at x weeks, the entity is deserving of protection. But the faculty that 'comes up with the notion of rights' is far more than one single part of the brain. Insofar as it is understood (and it is understood not that well), it is the interaction between different parts of the brain, hormonal influences (some of which are produced by organs in and out of the brain) as well as the influence of external factors.

So, tell me, when does that faculty exist?

nozzferrahhtoo

Bit of a let down given how much time I gave you. You still seem to be living in this wonderful world I wish I could join you in where everything is black and white and somehow “caveats” are enough to negate a position, even though the one I espouse here has thus far required none of them anyway.

After that you simply offer that dolphins MAY have one but we do not know it. Great, go do the research, but I do not base arguments or points on might be’s but on what we know actually is. Get more data, such as the concept of rights in dolphins, and I promise I will re-evaluate my position immediately to accommodate the new data. Until then however I am unlikely to be moved on what data you MIGHT find if you look hard enough.

Until then we know exactly which part of us generates this consciousness/sentience and we know at what point of the development of a foetus it is not only not operating in but is not even present in. I have linked you to more than 1 peer reviewed piece of science showing how we know these things and how people measure things like Belief at the level of the brain. So far I am the only one in this thread to even use actual peer reviewed science, though this is not too surprising on a thread where the level of science is such that some people think our gravity comes from the spinning of the earth and was so sure of it that they derided me for even suggesting the majority of people do not know where gravity comes from.

I can quote more if you like and you will also find papers on anaesthetics incredibly interesting in this regard too as we know how they work and how they disrupt consciousness because we DO know what part of the human brain gives us such things. I would highly recommend reading, for example, about how Gamma Coherence in Dendritic Gap Junctions are a huge part of giving humans what we call sentience. Gamma synchronicity is a direct precursor of consciousness as we know it * and I repeat my analogy to Radio from before where my position on this thread is not based on finding the transmitter of such things, or of finding it switched off, but that the transmitter itself is not even built yet…

*E. Roy John PhD, Leslie S. Prichep PhD - 2005

nozzferrahhtoo

drkpower wrote: »

You still dont get it!
You seem to think that this faculty just exists in the brain

Strange I would think so when no one here has shown any other source of it aside from the brain?

drkpower wrote: »

So, tell me, when does that faculty exist?

We do not know exactly. This is why, and I have said this numerous times before, I do not base my position on when it exists, but when we can be sure it does not.

There are several precursors to it, that it simply does not operate without. Now once they are present I have NO IDEA when the whole system "boots up" for want of a better word.

This does not mean, at all, that I can not identify a point in time when it simply is not present. I repeat for the umpteenth time my analogy to radio. If I look at a transmitter I have no idea merely by looking at it if it is transmitting or not. I simply can not tell. However if the transmitter is not even built yet and someone says "Well how do you KNOW the radio waves aren't there anyway?" then I feel quite within my rights to laugh at them.

Similar, once the precursors to human consciousness are in place I have no idea what the subjective experience of that entity is. I just do not and I would never pretend to like some people on the thread have already.

However given all those precursors that we know are required are not just not operational, but not PRESENT, I really do not see what the issue is with the rather safe conclusion that consciousness is not present.

The Corinthian

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Bit of a let down given how much time I gave you. You still seem to be living in this wonderful world I wish I could join you in where everything is black and white and somehow “caveats” are enough to negate a position, even though the one I espouse here has thus far required none of them anyway.

If you think that I have been exposing a "black and white" view then I'm afraid you've misunderstood, or simply have not paid attention.

I have criticized your position simply on the basis that it requires a complex combination of exceptions and clauses to hold together, which flies in the face of the principle of Occam's Razor. I've not suggested that the 'truth' should be "black and white" or, for that matter, that we are even in possession of the 'truth', only that we can only judge one to be the best available one.

I've rejected your position on this basis, even before questioning its initial axiom (that we should define a person on their capacity for sentience) in the same way that theories are often discarded in science once it becomes evident that they require too many exceptions to the rule to make them work.

The alternative I gave is simpler and requires few if any caveats. You can question the basic axiom (that we should define a person on their being a genetically distinct homo sapian) but that is another discussion and genuinely could be found flawed too.

In short, both of our positions could be flawed in the end, however yours have more flaws based upon it's over reliance on caveats.