Legalise abortion

nozzferrahhtoo

Well if you think that positions are void or weakened by requirements for clarifications or caveats then one can be forgiven for thinking you are seeking some kind of black & white solution. I can think of very few of our moral laws or legal laws that do not require such things. On top of this considering my position has thus far required none at all, I really am losing track of where it is you actually ARE claiming to come from.

I am not aware of what this “complex combination of exceptions and clauses to hold together” you are referring to actually is nor do I see what it has to do with Occams Razor which is a linguistic tool rather than any principle of proof.

The position I espouse if very simple and exception and clause and caveat free.

1) Rights come from the human mind and appear to exist no where else as a concept or a thing.

2) Since without this faculty there would be no rights, and since we do not appear to assign rights to anything else (DNA, Limbs, Bones, Organs etc) I think it not a leap to say it is TO this faculty we assign rights.

3) Therefore when this faculty arises first in the human foetus I believe these rights are attributable to the foetus, regardless of the level of efficiency a single example of that is running at. Since this does not even START to form, let alone appear in some interim state, until around 20 weeks, I base my opinion on abortion on a safe cut off of 16 weeks.

Where there is a caveat, exception, or clause in there I simply do not know. You keep referring to them in a general sense, but not once actually pointed out what one of them is.

The Corinthian

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Well if you think that positions are void or weakened by requirements for clarifications or caveats then one can be forgiven for thinking you are seeking some kind of black & white solution. I can think of very few of our moral laws or legal laws that do not require such things. On top of this considering my position has thus far required none at all, I really am losing track of where it is you actually ARE claiming to come from.

Where did I say a position should have no caveats?

I am not aware of what this “complex combination of exceptions and clauses to hold together” you are referring to actually is nor do I see what it has to do with Occams Razor which is a linguistic tool rather than any principle of proof.

Occam's Razor is a linguistic tool now?

1) Rights come from the human mind and appear to exist no where else as a concept or a thing.

This is an initial premise. Let's accept this for the time being.

2) Since without this faculty there would be no rights, and since we do not appear to assign rights to anything else (DNA, Limbs, Bones, Organs etc) I think it not a leap to say it is TO this faculty we assign rights.

Follows from 1). Grand.

3) Therefore when this faculty arises first in the human foetus I believe these rights are attributable to the foetus, regardless of the level of efficiency a single example of that is running at. Since this does not even START to form, let alone appear in some interim state, until around 20 weeks, I base my opinion on abortion on a safe cut off of 16 weeks.

This is where things become shaky as you fail to give a clear definition of what these qualities are if you are meant to measure them. The mind of a newborn bares little cognitive similarity to a seven year old, let alone an adult, after all - they've not reached the 'age of reason' as it were. Is it that they have the potential to develop such a mind, and if so, why are they excluded prior to this point given the equally have such a potential?

Where there is a caveat, exception, or clause in there I simply do not know. You keep referring to them in a general sense, but not once actually pointed out what one of them is.

Two caveats that you omitted that spring to mind are:

1. Once rights are gained they cannot be lost even if what defines them is lost (e.g. injury, senility).
2. Even if a human does not possess some or all the qualities (e.g. the mentally handicapped, infants) required to attain these rights, they may be included.

I would add a caveat on animals (e.g. dolphins, higher primates) who posses such qualities too, but I note you have added human to your definition.

nozzferrahhtoo

Another Zebra crossing of a post I see. It is all but unreadable. Suffice to say that yes, Occams razor is not a principle of any merit, but more a linguistic guide. It essentially says that if X works without Y then just work with X. For example since no one has any evidence for a god, and everything appears to work without god, then we can proceed without the notion of god. This, of course, proves nothing about the actual existence of said entity and it would be laughable to present it as evidence for that.

Actually calling on it as a principle to argue for a particular standpoint though is really funny. It is a tool, not a principle or a proof.

The mind of a newborn bares little cognitive similarity to a seven year old

Nor have I ever claimed it does or needs to. Quite the opposite in fact. You appear to be attacking my position based on something it does not claim. Care to re-try?

1. Once rights are gained they cannot be lost even if what defines them is lost (e.g. injury, senility).
2. Even if a human does not possess some or all the qualities (e.g. the mentally handicapped, infants) required to attain these rights, they may be included.

Erm they are not caveats. They ARE the actual position itself that I hold. How can my position be a caveat to itself? LOL. Care to re-try? As for Dolphins, I have seen nothing to suggest that they have a moral framework based on a notion of individual rights. Have you something to link me on for this or is it entirely irrelevant?

The Corinthian

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Another Zebra crossing of a post I see. It is all but unreadable.

Convenient if you are looking to avoid responding to the points made in it.

Suffice to say that yes, Occams razor is not a principle of any merit, but more a linguistic guide.

Except that it isn't. I even supplied a link.

It essentially says that if X works without Y then just work with X.

You need a lot of Y's though, ignoring any alternatives that would be significantly simpler.

Actually calling on it as a principle to argue for a particular standpoint though is really funny. It is a tool, not a principle or a proof.

Of course it is simply a tool and I have never claimed otherwise. Repeatedly I have said that the your need for caveats was indicative of an false position. I've never made any claim of proof.

Nor have I ever claimed it does or needs to. Quite the opposite in fact.

Where have you suggested the opposite? You outlined your position clearly enough that rights are attained with the development of the "human mind" (previously referred to as sentience and conciousness in this thread).

An infant is not capable of conceiving "rights" and as "without this faculty there would be no rights" then it logically should not have rights. Either that or you require a caveat.

Erm they are not caveats. They ARE the actual position itself that I hold. How can my position be a caveat to itself? LOL. Care to re-try?

I'm afraid they are. You ascribe rights to the faculty to conceive them - your points 1 and 2. Those two are examples of where a mind cannot conceive them - thus do not qualify for rights, unless you create a caveat that flies in the face of your initial assertions.

As for Dolphins, I have seen nothing to suggest that they have a moral framework based on a notion of individual rights. Have you something to link me on for this or is it entirely irrelevant?

It's a moot point as you included 'human' in your definition. If you do not limit your definition to homo sapians, then the debate becomes more complex as evidence exists pointing to higher intelligence in dolphins, although whether this translates to an understanding of 'rights' or not or an understanding of 'rights' that is alien to us is another matter.

AARRRGH

The Corinthian, it's difficult to read your posts. Maybe just write your arguments in paragraph format.

The Corinthian

AARRRGH wrote: »

The Corinthian, it's difficult to read your posts. Maybe just write your arguments in paragraph format.

At this stage in a thread, arguments become very difficult to follow regardless of the format, TBH.

AARRRGH

The Corinthian wrote: »

At this stage in a thread, arguments become very difficult to follow regardless of the format, TBH.

True. And at this stage argumenting is pointless as you're not going to convince each other.

chocgirl

I think it's amazing that we are still sticking out heads in the sand as a nation. Abortion is another rich/poor divide really. Those who have the means and support can avail of abortions abroad without any great difficulty. It's the less well off and most vulnerable who have no choice, they're having that baby whether they want it, or, can afford it. Sad state of affairs.

Putting personal feelings on abortion aside, this just can't be fair, think access should be there for everyone.

97i9y3941

yes,and as i said the day of holy ireland is dead and gone...

metrovelvet

Another telling perspective. I recall a wealtht man making a considerable donation to planned parenthood in the US with the condition that ghe money only be used to subdidize black women seeking abortions.

nozzferrahhtoo

Corinthian,

These Zebra crossing posts are unreadable and almost impossible to reply to. AARRRGH shows that I am not the only person having trouble with this. That you would then use this fact as an opportunistic excuse to take a dig and suggest people are avoiding your points when they have kindly invested a lot of time in discussing them with you says more than I ever could.

Let me repeat, since you appear to need help with this. Occams razor is a tool and can not be used to prove anything. The example I gave is that if X works without Y the razor merely SUGGESTS you proceed without Y. That is all. It says nothing about Y.

It says no more or less than this. Occams razor could be applied, for example, to the story of Laplace and his stellar models. When asked where god was in the model he said “Sire, I had no need of that assumption”. In other words, the model worked without assuming there was a god, so he proceeded without it. This is Occams razor in action and as you can see it says nothing about the actual existence, or otherwise, of that entity.

So I honestly do not see what part of my position you are even applying it to, let alone how you think it applies. Maybe you can adumbrate this again and I will ask for elaboration.

As for my argument on rights, I repeat I never claimed that a mind has to be in a certain state of development. I just said it has to have arisen. So the difference in cogitative ability between a 7 year old, a 1 year old and a coma victim are entirely separate to my position. This is why I said “Nor have I ever claimed it does or needs to. Quite the opposite in fact“

Let me put it in a simpler form for you so you understand. It is the cogitative faculty in humans that conceived of rights. Therefore it is TO that facility I think we assign them. This says nothing of the individual operating capabilities or status of individual examples of that facility, I refer to the facility itself as a whole. Yes some individual examples of it are immature, some are fine, some are impaired or damaged, and some are so far beyond you and I that we seem like bickering children to them. Regardless of individual examples my ENTIRE position is aimed at the facility itself, not individual examples of it.

And as I said therefore, my whole position can not be a caveat to itself, which you keep trying to portray it as falsely.

And you can drop the word Human from my definition all you like. As you said yourself there is no evidence of this concept of rights in Dolphins etc. so the word human in my argument is entirely superfluous. Should this faculty be discovered in these animals I would argue for their rights a lot more than I do now as a fellow cogent species with civilisation and a system of rights. My position would not have to be altered or changed in anyway, but just extended to accommodate them too.

The Corinthian

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

These Zebra crossing posts are unreadable and almost impossible to reply to. AARRRGH shows that I am not the only person having trouble with this. That you would then use this fact as an opportunistic excuse to take a dig and suggest people are avoiding your points when they have kindly invested a lot of time in discussing them with you says more than I ever could.

You have actually been avoiding points for several pages now - your over-reliance on caveats and why this weakened your position was something raised long before this entire thread became an excercise in rhetorical attrition.

Let me repeat, since you appear to need help with this. Occams razor is a tool and can not be used to prove anything. The example I gave is that if X works without Y the razor merely SUGGESTS you proceed without Y. That is all. It says nothing about Y.

Already responded to this, and frankly the rest of your post.

Ultimately you finally gave a definition of your position, I looked at it step-by-step, and pointed out that you needed to add caveats to it so as to avoid it justifying scenarios such as infanticide and euthanasia. You have not rebutted this.

Now you can hurl dirty big slabs of text at me that simply have us going around in circles again or you can address this. Or just not bother. All the same to me.

nozzferrahhtoo

Again there are no caveats unless you keep insisting on my entire position being a caveat to itself. I have asked you many times what you think these caveats are and the ONLY answer you have supplied me was a description of my actual position!!

How you think a position can be a caveat to itself is remaining a mystery to me. Not to mention the fact that we have already established and agreed that even if a position DOES have caveats, it does not void or negate the position in any way and most of our laws in fact have such caveats, such as Homicide with degrees of murder and manslaughter.

However as I said, my position is that rights come when the faculty arises, and are retained until it dies. This encompasses by definition everything you have so far falsely called a caveat and rather than deal with that, you just keep saying it’s a caveat over and over again in the hope saying it often enough will make it true.

However thanks for the comment on blocks of text. This, at least, explains your need to break everything up into tiny bite size pieces before replying. I did not realise paragraphs were such a test of your attention span. I will endeavour to use smaller text to help you along. Not meant as an insult of course. If you genuinely have trouble with larger pieces of text then I can work with this knowledge and go along with you on it.

The Corinthian

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

However as I said, my position is that rights come when the faculty arises, and are retained until it dies. This encompasses by definition everything you have so far falsely called a caveat and rather than deal with that, you just keep saying it’s a caveat over and over again in the hope saying it often enough will make it true.

Actually you did not say this when you laid out your position. There you did not mention anything about such rights being "retained until it dies" and so I raised the need for a caveat to your stated position to address this.

You then claimed that they were part of your position - except they were not, I added them for you and only off the top of my head - I hadn't even begun to look at how you define or test for such a capacity, let alone question why we should accept it as a metre in the first place.

How many refinements to your three point position would you need before you start to question its veracity?

However thanks for the comment on blocks of text. This, at least, explains your need to break everything up into tiny bite size pieces before replying. I did not realise paragraphs were such a test of your attention span. I will endeavour to use smaller text to help you along. Not meant as an insult of course. If you genuinely have trouble with larger pieces of text then I can work with this knowledge and go along with you on it.

Of course you mean to insult me, pretending that you are not would be equally insulting were it not so laughable. The purpose of responding to specific points is that the reader can understand exactly what is being address without need to flick back to a post that could be sometimes pages back. It also stops 'revision' of posts that sometimes occurs in these discussions.

But if you feel ad hominem attacks increase your credibility, fire away.

AARRRGH

Fred83 wrote: »

yes,and as i said the day of holy ireland is dead and gone...

I am not religious but I am anti-abortion. Why? Because I think the unborn, if given a choice, would choose to live.

philologos

AARRRGH wrote: »

I am not religious but I am anti-abortion. Why? Because I think the unborn, if given a choice, would choose to live.

It's about rights really I find.

metrovelvet

AARRRGH wrote: »

I am not religious but I am anti-abortion. Why? Because I think the unborn, if given a choice, would choose to live.

This is where I stand too with.

drkpower

AARRRGH wrote: »

I am not religious but I am anti-abortion. Why? Because I think the unborn, if given a choice, would choose to live.

As would 'surplus' embryos created during IVF, and embryos prevented from implanting by an IUD or the MAP. Are you against these also?

drkpower

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Let me put it in a simpler form for you so you understand. It is the cogitative faculty in humans that conceived of rights. Therefore it is TO that facility I think we assign them. This says nothing of the individual operating capabilities or status of individual examples of that facility, I refer to the facility itself as a whole. Yes some individual examples of it are immature, some are fine, some are impaired or damaged, and some are so far beyond you and I that we seem like bickering children to them. Regardless of individual examples my ENTIRE position is aimed at the facility itself, not individual examples of it.

It seems remarkable to me that you continue to be certain of the essential infallability of your theory despite numerous people pointing out some fairly obvious issues. So perhaps I am missing something... So I will give it one more go in an attempt to understand. So you might correct me if I am wrong.

1. You assign rights to a facility/faculty that develops rights.
2. And you assign rights to that faculty regardless of its operational status or regardless of whether it is immature and even if the faculty is subsequently damaged to the point that it does not function at all.
3. But when it comes to actually determining when this faculty exists, you use evidence that the faculty is working, or at least that it is functioning in some form (see below).
4. Yet you ignore the fact that an immature foetus has this faculty, albeit in an immature form.

To me, there seems to be glaring inconsistency in this position. If the faculty, even when non-functioning, or when immature, is deserving of rights, why do you use, as evidence for its existence, evidence of its actual functioning and ignore evidence that it actually exists, albeit in an immature form.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

* One example I cite I will re-paste here as I have it to hand…

K.J.S. Anand, a researcher of newborns, and P.R. Hickey, published in NEJM say "intermittent electroencephalographic bursts in both cerebral hemispheres are first seen at 20 weeks gestation; they become sustained at 22 weeks and bilaterally synchronous at 26 to 27 weeks.

AARRRGH

drkpower wrote: »

As would 'surplus' embryos created during IVF, and embryos prevented from implanting by an IUD or the MAP. Are you against these also?

I would be ok with these as the intention behind IVF etc. is good. They are trying to create life, not destroy it.

drkpower

AARRRGH wrote: »

I would be ok with these as the intention behind IVF etc. is good. They are trying to create life, not destroy it.

IUD, MAP, OCP?

AARRRGH

drkpower wrote: »

IUD, MAP, OCP?

I don't know enough about them to comment.

drkpower

AARRRGH wrote: »

I don't know enough about them to comment.

Their primary (or secondary) mode of action is to prevent implantation/destroy an embryo.

AARRRGH

drkpower wrote: »

Their primary (or secondary) mode of action is to prevent implantation/destroy an embryo.

Oh, so they're some sort of contraception, like the coil or whatever it's called?

If so, I'm ok with them. I have no problem with contraception.

I know you could argue that an egg which has just been fertilised is an unborn person, but personally I don't agree. I'm not sure exactly where I draw the line but it's probably after a few days or a week or thereabouts. It's sort of like when two people meet each other for the first time, I wouldn't consider them friends. But if they've been hanging out for a few days or a week, I'd change my opinion.

nozzferrahhtoo

Corinthian,

So let me get this straight. Your whole attack on my position is not that it requires caveats (which it doesnt because my position actually encompasses the two examples you gave to attack it) but that I was not clear enough the first time for your liking and I clarified and made clearer my position?

Your issue is not with caveats but that someone dared to clarify what they mean and rather than address me based on that clarification you keep returning to an earlier post which was not clear enough for your liking and jumping up and down on THAT all the time. This is not helpful to say the least.

This is my position, stated yet again for you...

The only source of rights I am aware of is that of the human cogitate faculty of consciousness. No other source, animal, area appears to have this. I therefore feel that it is TO this faculty we assign those rights as soon as it arises and it is retained until death, regardless of the stage of development or current operational efficiency of that faculty at any one given time as it is the faculty itself I am respecting in this and not individual examples of it.

This is my position plain and simple and it addresses, without footnote, caveat or clarification, every example you have given from coma patients to infants to fetus. If you want to test it with further examples you have not given yet, I welcome the test.

The rest of your post is just an attempt to take offence where none was intended. Everyone has areas where they are weak and in every case we have to work with those people on those areas. I endevor to help anyone understand an issue by working with them on whatever problems they have. Some people on this thread do not understand even the most basic science for example, so I tried to explain my position using little science (for example the user who thinks gravity comes from the earths rotation). Acknowledging a persons weaknesses and working to acheive something while taking them into account is the duty of all people in my view, and if large blocks of text area cumbersome for you then I am happy to work with you on this if you tell me how.

I hope you too will in return will acknowledge that splitting posts up into innumerable bites and replying with similar tiny bites looks like a zebra crossing and is almost unreadable and more than one user has pointed this out to you now. So perhaps we can work together to find a common method of communication that addresses our difficulty with your zebra posts and your difficulty with applying an attention span to larger ones. There is no reason we can not achieve this, and there is no reason anyone should take offence at having their difficulties in this pointed out.

nozzferrahhtoo

AARRRGH wrote: »

I am not religious but I am anti-abortion. Why? Because I think the unborn, if given a choice, would choose to live.

Indeed the probably would. However so would anything if given a choice and the capability to make it. A tree, if given a cogitave mind and the concept of choice, would likely choose not to be cut down and made into a table. Sperm if given the choice would choose not to ram at high speed up against a condom and die, but would instead want to be given a fighting chance at survival by acheiving their "goal".

If we went around worrying what every entity would choose if given the choice we would end up bald from worry.

Nor can we go around making assumptions on what someones choice may or may not be. For example in murder it is not a defense to say the victim might have chosen to die and in fact even if they expressly actually wanted to die this is still not allowed as a defense in our laws.

Which is why my own cut off in abortion comes at the time I think the entity is assigned rights and their murder is still murder regardless of what assumptions we might want to make about their desires or otherwise.

However before this point, which I have defined for the reasons described as being around the 16 week mark in my opinion, their rights and choice are irrelevant as to me they are non-existent.

nozzferrahhtoo

Drkpower,

Alas you are indeed wrong and I am happy to correct you. Most likely this is my fault not yours however. I do endeavour to explain myself better and better each day. No one is perfect at this and I will keep trying until I get my point across clearer.

I am not sure how to reply to some of your post I am afraid. This is not your fault, I just need some things clarified. For example you say:

if the faculty is subsequently damaged to the point that it does not function at all.

As far as I know if it doesn’t function AT ALL then this is called DEATH. Coma patients for example have a severely curtailed function but no one claims it is not functioning AT ALL and in fact we have no idea what the subjective experience of a coma patient is. Many people in fact have reason to believe that the patient is partially aware, which explains the practise of talking and reading to them.

So no, if it is not functioning AT ALL then this patient is dead and this is another discussion all together!

However I can reply to this bit:

3. But when it comes to actually determining when this faculty exists, you use evidence that the faculty is working, or at least that it is functioning in some form (see below).

As it is entirely opposite to the position I actually hold. Let me attempt to clarify once again.

My entire position is based on identifying a point in time when not only is the faculty NOT functioning in ANY form, but in fact the elements that create it are not even there either.

At this point I see nothing immoral or problematic with abortion. However as soon as it starts to form we quite literally do not know what the subjective experience of the entity is. We just do not. We know it is not the full cogiate state you and I enjoy, but beyond that we just do not know. So as soon as the faculty arises, regardless of it’s current operational state, I am uncomfortable with abortion and I think this entity has attained rights, including the right to life.

So when you say this:

Yet you ignore the fact that an immature foetus has this faculty, albeit in an immature form.

I have entirely failed to get my actual position across as my opinion on abortion is that the faculty does not exist in ANY form, immature or otherwise!!!!

I find that the analogy I used a couple of times already in this is useful in explaining this to people as I have convinced quite a few people using it now. If the faculty is radio waves, then I am identifying a point in the development, not where the transmitter is faultly, not where the transmitter is there but switched off, but where the transmitter is not even built yet.

If I WAS doing what you think I was doing, then based on the quote you pasted from me on the work of K.J.S. Anand my position on abortion would be a cut off of somewhere between 22 and 27 weeks as the faculty is forming then but it not complete. I would indeed be doing EXACTLY as you said by ignoring the fact the faculty is there but in an immature form.

Note however that I START working with the 20 weeks where the faculty only STARTS to be built. The first part of the radio transmitter is only laid down then. I then incorporate a time period before even THAT and get my abortion cut off of 16 weeks.

I hope this is clearer now, because I can tell you that your point 3 and 4 above do not represent t he idea I am trying to get across here in ANY way at all.

The Corinthian

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Corinthian,

So let me get this straight. Your whole attack on my position is not that it requires caveats (which it doesnt because my position actually encompasses the two examples you gave to attack it) but that I was not clear enough the first time for your liking and I clarified and made clearer my position?

Your issue is not with caveats but that someone dared to clarify what they mean and rather than address me based on that clarification you keep returning to an earlier post which was not clear enough for your liking and jumping up and down on THAT all the time. This is not helpful to say the least.

This is my position, stated yet again for you...

The only source of rights I am aware of is that of the human cogitate faculty of consciousness. No other source, animal, area appears to have this. I therefore feel that it is TO this faculty we assign those rights as soon as it arises and it is retained until death, regardless of the stage of development or current operational efficiency of that faculty at any one given time as it is the faculty itself I am respecting in this and not individual examples of it.

This is my position plain and simple and it addresses, without footnote, caveat or clarification, every example you have given from coma patients to infants to fetus. If you want to test it with further examples you have not given yet, I welcome the test.

The rest of your post is just an attempt to take offence where none was intended. Everyone has areas where they are weak and in every case we have to work with those people on those areas. I endevor to help anyone understand an issue by working with them on whatever problems they have. Some people on this thread do not understand even the most basic science for example, so I tried to explain my position using little science (for example the user who thinks gravity comes from the earths rotation). Acknowledging a persons weaknesses and working to acheive something while taking them into account is the duty of all people in my view, and if large blocks of text area cumbersome for you then I am happy to work with you on this if you tell me how.

I hope you too will in return will acknowledge that splitting posts up into innumerable bites and replying with similar tiny bites looks like a zebra crossing and is almost unreadable and more than one user has pointed this out to you now. So perhaps we can work together to find a common method of communication that addresses our difficulty with your zebra posts and your difficulty with applying an attention span to larger ones. There is no reason we can not achieve this, and there is no reason anyone should take offence at having their difficulties in this pointed out.

To begin with the position you stated (as cited in your previous post) position did not encompass either of the two examples I raised to attack it. Nowhere in that definition did you suggest that once the faculty, once attained, could not be lost. Even now, with your supposed 'reiteration' (more correctly a revision as it differs from your previous version) but omitted anything that would deal with the scenario of an infant or mentally handicapped person that does not posses this "cogitate faculty of consciousness".

At this stage you appear to be increasingly relying on ad hominem attacks, while disingenuously claiming that you are being helpful. I've been around long enough to smell such rhetorical tactics when they're being shovelled. I note you've taken to quoting snippets of other posters too, might your attention span be wavering?

In short, you're changing your story and then claiming that you have not, when it is blatantly obvious that you have. If not, please feel free to quote where in that definition (as cited in your previous post) you covered those two scenarios - but do attempt to avoid the obfuscating hyperbole when doing so - just for us simple folk.

drkpower

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

My entire position is based on identifying a point in time when not only is the faculty NOT functioning in ANY form, but in fact the elements that create it are not even there either.

Note however that I START working with the 20 weeks where the faculty only STARTS to be built. The first part of the radio transmitter is only laid down then. I then incorporate a time period before even THAT and get my abortion cut off of 16 weeks.

Ok,so the functioning of the faculty is irrelevent, right? So, ultimately, your theory is based on the fact that a young foetus does not have any of the elements needed - the hardware - required to create the faculty to which you assign rights. Fair enough, lets look at that; as an aside, I do wonder why you use, in support of your argument, ANY reference to when the faculty is functioning, if its functioning is irrelevent. Puzzling.

Anyway, lets look at the hardware argument.

1. The first issue is on what evidence do you base your assessment of whether the hardware exists - the only evidence I have seen you post related to electroencephalographical bursts, which of course is evidence of function, rather than hardware.

Perhaps you might indicate all of the structures in the body are responsible for conciousness and at what stage they are known to develop. And I think we need specifics here; if you are to establish something as fundamental as the right to life on the basis of the timing of the development of certain structures (that you claim allow the faculty of conciousness to develop) it only seems reasonable that you know all of the structures that are involved and a fairly accurate estimation of when they develop.

2. The second issue is 'what does developed mean'? However, until you have identified a list of all of the structures (and their time of development), it is premature for me to go into what might be considered potentially superfluous detail on the nature of foetal development.

Suffice it to say that, given the nature of foetal development, every structure in the body has a pre-cursor. Indeed, human development continues throughout childhood and on. A male child has no sperm, but does have the pre-cursors to produce sperm. Yet do we question his 'right to reproduce', even if he does not yet have the structures that allow him to exercise that right?

But I am jumping ahead; letw wait for your list of structures that make up the faculty that we assign rights to, and we can then look at Q.2.

AARRRGH

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Indeed the probably would. However so would anything if given a choice and the capability to make it. A tree, if given a cogitave mind and the concept of choice, would likely choose not to be cut down and made into a table. Sperm if given the choice would choose not to ram at high speed up against a condom and die, but would instead want to be given a fighting chance at survival by acheiving their "goal".

If we went around worrying what every entity would choose if given the choice we would end up bald from worry.

Well I happen to think forcing something to die is wrong.

I have ethical issues with my consumption of meat. I know the animal is terrified of death, and I know I only eat it because of my appetite. This is wrong.

Again, it's not a black and white subject so it is hard to define things exactly, but personally I am ok with sperm dying, but I am not ok with a growing life dying.

nozzferrahhtoo

Corinthian,

You are still commenting on my position as I presented it first. This is NOT helpful. This is in fact normal discourse. You state your position and then if someone does not understand it you clarify further until they do.

Similarly if you assume something is obvious and leave it out (something we are all guilty of as humans) and someone does not understand then you explain further.

You asked about things like infants and I clarified by stating my position a different way.

Your approach here is similar to this:

Person1: I saw a car
Person2: What kind of car?
Person2: I saw a black car.
Person2: Ah now you are changing your story as you never said black car the first time!
Person1: No my point was just that I saw a car, the type of car is not important to my point! I thought this was obvious! I just wanted to tell you I meant a car.
Person2: No you are changing your story and trying to hide it now.

Compare this to the first post in which I presented my position. Our conversation is pretty much gone like this:

Person1: The faculty of conciousness
Person2: Well what about when its an infant or a 7 year old or a coma victim?
Person1: Well no from the start I just meant the faculty, I do not differentiate between the types. I just mean the faculty of conciousness.
Person2: Ah you never said that! So you must be changing your position!
Person1: No I am just clarifying. I meant this from the start, I think that was obvious, but apparently it is not so now I have clarified and sorrry I did not say it the first time.
Person2: Nooo! You changed your position and now you are trying to hide it.

If every person who clarified later what they meant earlier were accused of dishonesty, most discourse would break down.

However, how about now that I have clarified my position as it now stands in post #376 we can discuss it, instead of you harping on about how you understood it the first time? I have made my position clear but rather than address it you find it easier to cope with how you understood it the first time.

I said from the start that I mean the faculty of consciousness. I have not changed this. All I have done is clarified that by this I mean that faculty in ANY state of operation or maturity. Nothing else has changed. So please address the point I am making and not what you once thought I was making and I have now shown I was not.

As for the rest of your post, I stand by what I said. If long blocks of text are difficult for you and short snippets presented in a long unreadable mesh are bad for me and other users, we can work together to find a form of communication that works better. Above all keeping communication open is the most important goal of any discourse. I do not apologise for that and I think it is the right thing to do. No insult was meant and if you choose to take it then that is your issue and not mine.

nozzferrahhtoo

drkpower wrote: »

I do wonder why you use, in support of your argument, ANY reference to when the faculty is functioning, if its functioning is irrelevent. Puzzling.

Not puzzling at all. If you want to find a point in time when X does not function you have to know something about how it does. Take my radio transmitter analogy. I could not say what I said if I did not first know radio waves come from such transmitters.

To find my position therefore I learned all there was to learn, or at least all I could find to learn, about how conciousness etc form in the human. I was then able to identify a point in time using all that science when we could say with near 100% certainty it was not there. I could not have reached this point without first referencing how conciousness functions.

It puts me in the mind of an old saying which normally I use when people are going through hard times, but is funnily still applicable here. “How could we ever recognise the light, if we first did not know the darkness?”. In other words how can we know good times if we do not know bad? Or in this case how can I identify a point in time when these things do not function, without first learning all we can about how they DO?

drkpower wrote: »

The first issue is on what evidence do you base your assessment of whether the hardware exists

Actually I have already posted a lot on this and I find a lot of it very interesting. I referenced for example papers in which scientists today not only know what aspects of the brain give us things like belief, opinion, ideas and son on, but they have actually being measuring different types of these at the level of the brain. Really ground breaking stuff.

You yourself pasted one of the quotes from a paper I use in this subject which shows how and when these parts of the brain, essentially the same parts that were being measured in the papers above, start to form. Essentially this faculty of Cognitive Consciousness simply can not exist even without this one element. Nothing in science suggests that it can. Of course we could get into pointless arguments over "proving the negative" here if you like and "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" etc. However science does not work that way. Everything we know about Cognitive Consciousness tells us it needs this element to function, nothing at all in science shows that it does without. Therefore I think this is case proven on that part of my thesis.

nozzferrahhtoo

AARRRGH wrote: »

I have ethical issues with my consumption of meat. I know the animal is terrified of death, and I know I only eat it because of my appetite. This is wrong.

Then I am a little confused. On eating an animal that was killed after being born, fully formed and had its full animal wits about it when it was led to die you go ahead and do it anyway even though you find it troublesome.

Yet when I talk about abortion up to the week 16 of development when it is just a blob of cells with no even beginnings of the formation of the human mind you baulk?

And you are ok with sperm dying but not a fetus, even though neither has reached a stage of development where the faculty that is even capable of making a choice has developed in either. Yet you say "IF X had the choice I think it WOULD choose Y" about one of them, but not about the other. On what grounds are you presuming to grant the fantasy of choice to one and not the other, when both are equally devoid of it?

Put another way one entity is really terrified and is trying very hard to excercise the choice to get the hell out of there before it is killed and eaten, the other entity has no choice, no capability of making it and no faculty that could even make it if we understood how to ask it. You at the end of the day ignore the actual choice of the animal and eat it anyway, while at the same time trying to imagine the choice of something for which choice is irrelevant and then acting on it?

The equivocation here has left me reeling and I really can not see where you are coming from much as I try. It sounds to me honestly, like you are thinking on this one with your heart and not your head. A noble enough thing to do of course! But problematic.

AARRRGH

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Then I am a little confused. On eating an animal that was killed after being born, fully formed and had its full animal wits about it when it was led to die you go ahead and do it anyway even though you find it troublesome.

Yet when I talk about abortion up to the week 16 of development when it is just a blob of cells with no even beginnings of the formation of the human mind you baulk?

And you are ok with sperm dying but not a fetus, even though neither has reached a stage of development where the faculty that is even capable of making a choice has developed in either. Yet you say "IF X had the choice I think it WOULD choose Y" about one of them, but not about the other. On what grounds are you presuming to grant the fantasy of choice to one and not the other, when both are equally devoid of it?

The equivocation here has left me reeling and I really can not see where you are coming from much as I try.

As stated, I think eating meat is wrong, but it's something I do, and is something I am not proud of. I hope one day I will get it together and become a vegetarian or vegan.

I think my opinion on abortion is quite simple.

If you don't have an abortion you will produce a life.

It doesn't matter if you throw your sperm into a volcano, as they (on their own) will never become a life.

So abortion is about human life. Trees and other items which aren't humans are irrelevant.

drkpower

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Not puzzling at all. If you want to find a point in time when X does not function you have to know something about how it does.

I thought it was about whether the hardware exists, not about function, and now you go back to function. But in nay case, that is an aside.

You earlier said that your position was based on identifying when the elements needed to function are not there. I want to know about when the elements are there, when they are there and how you know they are there. Presumably you know this information; it seems fundamental to the assessment you claim to have made.

Of course, you also say in response to the Corinthian that you mean the faculty in 'ANY state of operation or maturity'. You might also clarify this? Does this mean you only recognise the faculty only if it is operating (ie. functioning), which is in conflict with what you posted earlier?

Or when you say 'in any state of maturity', does this not mean that an extremely early foetal (7 week) telencephalon, which is the immature forebrain, and develops into the cerebral cortex - amongst other parts - is the immature version of at least some of the elements (ie. the frontal cortex) that go to producing the faculty of conciousness?

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

To find my position therefore I learned all there was to learn, or at least all I could find to learn, about how conciousness etc form in the human. I was then able to identify a point in time using all that science when we could say with near 100% certainty it was not there. I could not have reached this point without first referencing how conciousness functions.

So, again, please tell us what the elements are in the human body that must are responsible for conciousness and at what stage they are known to develop. The above is quite general and this is an area, given the gravity, where we could do with specifics. Given that my understanding of the area is that there is considerable lack of knowledge as to what aspects of the human body and experience go into conciousness, I am interested to see the "elements" which you claim are needed for conciousness to function and the time at which these elements begin to develop.

The Corinthian

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

You are still commenting on my position as I presented it first. This is NOT helpful. This is in fact normal discourse. You state your position and then if someone does not understand it you clarify further until they do.

I reject this as a blatant falsehood on your part. You did not present it first, you presented it only a page or so ago after weeks of debate. You then claimed that you had covered the caveats that I raised in that post, when you in fact did not. That's not called "normal discourse" - that's called lying.

Now you would lead us to believe that your argument is in reality an iterative process, where you may add or refine it (for our benefit as a sudden revelation would be too much for us) as the discussion progresses, even though in stating it you challenged me to find need for caveats.

Tell us another one.

However, how about now that I have clarified my position as it now stands in post #376 we can discuss it, instead of you harping on about how you understood it the first time? I have made my position clear but rather than address it you find it easier to cope with how you understood it the first time.

That post ascribes rights to possession to a faculty "as soon as it arises", yet this faculty does not exist in infants, who have no concept or understanding of rights, or many classifications of mentally handicapped. According to your criteria, neither of these two groups are worthy of rights...

I said from the start that I mean the faculty of consciousness. I have not changed this. All I have done is clarified that by this I mean that faculty in ANY state of operation or maturity. Nothing else has changed. So please address the point I am making and not what you once thought I was making and I have now shown I was not.

...until your next iteration of caveats and exceptions to the rule. Rights are ascribed to those in possession of "the human cogitate faculty of consciousness" except for exception A, and except for case B, and so on.

Your "ANY state of operation or maturity" caveat (where one no longer requires said faculty to qualify) is a further refinement on post #376, but it opens up a new inconsistency whereby it can just as easily apply to a week old foetus as a week old infant - the old 'potential' argument.

I await your next caveat to shore up this hole. Very soon your basic principle becomes an unwieldy collection of caveats that water down the original principle to the point of near irrelevancy.

As for the rest of your post, I stand by what I said. If long blocks of text are difficult for you and short snippets presented in a long unreadable mesh are bad for me and other users, we can work together to find a form of communication that works better. Above all keeping communication open is the most important goal of any discourse. I do not apologise for that and I think it is the right thing to do. No insult was meant and if you choose to take it then that is your issue and not mine.

I do not believe for a moment that you are acting out of any sense of fairness or altruism. Long posts are not in the slightest bit difficult to follow, but I do not suffer hyperbole designed to obfuscate meaning. This along with your increasing unbelievable explanations lead me to believe that you're simply using rather dishonest rhetorical devices to win an argument.

nozzferrahhtoo

AARRRGH wrote: »

If you don't have an abortion you will produce a life.

I fail to see how this is relevant either I am afraid. In fact it appears to support my side rather than yours. Look at your choice of language.

If you do not have an abortion you WILL produce a life. Future tense. In other words at the point of having an abortion you have NOT YET produced one. You are basing your position on what MIGHT be true and not what IS true. This is inherently problematic.

It would make just as much sense to say “If you did not become celibate you will produce a life”. So why is abortion wrong and not celibacy? Or condoms? Or the pill?

nozzferrahhtoo

drkpower wrote: »

I want to know about when the elements are there, when they are there and how you know they are there. Presumably you know this information; it seems fundamental to the assessment you claim to have made.

I have already provided this. We know the electrical activity in the brain that is required for human consciousness to arise. I have identified a point in development when this is not only not operating fully but is not present AT ALL. This is more than enough to support my claim.

Even coma victims etc have such activity, just not the same as we have it. If this activity disappears entirely we have a word for this: Death. If it is “dead” after it stops, then I honestly have no issue with the position that the entity is similarly “dead” before it starts too. Dead in terms of the human mind of course, as the actual foetus is still “alive” in the same way amoeba or plants are etc.

However if you have some evidence for consciousness existing in an entity where this activity is not present then after you claim your Nobel prize in biology, please come back and inform us of your findings as my position thus far is entirely falsifiable by such data.

nozzferrahhtoo

Corinthian,

Yes I did present it first. From the very opening of this thread I said I was discussing “The faculty of consciousness”. It was you, not I, that started equivocating on different types or states of such a faculty, not me. My position from the start has been on the faculty as a whole. This has not changed at any point, much as you want to keep saying it has.

Infants in fact DO have this faculty. It merely is not functioning at the level yours and mine is. That is all. I however do not equivocate on that as from the start I have referred to the faculty AS A WHOLE.

If you want to address THAT position, which is my ACTUAL position then I am here for you. If you want to address the person in your head who is saying things I am not, then I can not help you other than to keep clarifying what it is I am saying.

If you in fact have no trouble with long blocks of text as you now say, then I do not need to work with you on making things easier for you. However if there is any other way I can help you, do not hesitate to let me know. I hope in turn you can rise above calling everyone dishonest, and taking insults where none is intended, merely because people offer to work with you on such issues.

For example I openly admit, and another user did too, that this practise of taking a post, splitting it up into 10 or 20 tiny bits and responding to it with tiny bits ends up being an almost unreadable mesh of nonsense that looks more like a zebra crossing than a discussion and I have trouble reading it. I openly ask you to work with me on this and if you deign to do so I would not suddenly take it as an insult, but as helpful.

The Corinthian

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Yes I did present it first. From the very opening of this thread I said I was discussing “The faculty of consciousness”. It was you, not I, that started equivocating on different types or states of such a faculty, not me. My position from the start has been on the faculty as a whole. This has not changed at any point, much as you want to keep saying it has.

That is untrue. I have cited posts that show you have amended your position. You have ignored this. Your position may be based upon a principle that you have held from the onset, but it is evident that you have repeatedly needed to add caveats to deal with scenarios that in itself it cannot deal with. Again you have ignored or simply dismissed these.

Infants in fact DO have this faculty. It merely is not functioning at the level yours and mine is. That is all. I however do not equivocate on that as from the start I have referred to the faculty AS A WHOLE.

Infants do not have this faculty - neurologically, the brain actually continues developing well after birth. Please demonstrate otherwise if you disagree.

I hope in turn you can rise above calling everyone dishonest, and taking insults where none is intended, merely because people offer to work with you on such issues.

Please, you are not working with me. I consider your claim to be doing so as a disingenuous attempt to appear reasonable towards me, while actively attempting to mislead.

nozzferrahhtoo

Again you can lie about my position all you like. However I am repeating it over and over…

From the start my position has been directed at the faculty of consciousness itself. I do not need to, nor have I, equivocated between different types, levels or statuses of the faculty. If you want to address that, which is my actual position, then do so. Otherwise it is not me you are talking with.

Infants in fact do have these parts of the brain and we do not have any idea what the subjective experience of being such an infant is. Yes, it will develop yet further as it ages, but I do not worry about that because, yet again, my position is directed at the faculty as a whole.

However this is entirely irrelevant as my entire position is directed at identifying when this faculty is not functioning AT ALL. So different levels of it between infants and adults is entirely meaningless to the position I espouse.

Yet again you can call me dishonest all you want. I merely thought you had issues with large pieces of text and offered to work with you on this. If you do not require this then so be it, but if you wish to take offence at my offer then this is entirely your issue to deal with and not mine.

The Corinthian

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Again you can lie about my position all you like. However I am repeating it over and over…

All you are repeating is a complete denial of the points made to you. I've pointed to posts where you have changed your position, so the evidence would point to you rather than I telling the porkies now.

From the start my position has been directed at the faculty of consciousness itself. I do not need to, nor have I, equivocated between different types, levels or statuses of the faculty. If you want to address that, which is my actual position, then do so. Otherwise it is not me you are talking with.

Indeed you have not equivocated between different types, levels or statuses of the faculty - you've barley even tried to define said faculty, for that matter. It seems to be some vague notion of what allows us to understand the concept of rights.

Even without a more concrete definition, exceptions to your rule are already becoming necessary. Infants do not have this faculty. The severely mentally handicapped do not have this faculty. The senile do not have this faculty.

Yet they all qualify for rights by your logic, thanks to a collection of caveats based on past possession, partial possession, future possession or some such.

It is evident from such exceptions, that this faculty simply does not make a good measure of humanity, yet you doggedly cling to it so that it may somehow be forced to fit into your World-view.

Infants in fact do have these parts of the brain and we do not have any idea what the subjective experience of being such an infant is. Yes, it will develop yet further as it ages, but I do not worry about that because, yet again, my position is directed at the faculty as a whole.

As I have already asked, please demonstrate this claim. Back it up.

However this is entirely irrelevant as my entire position is directed at identifying when this faculty is not functioning AT ALL. So different levels of it between infants and adults is entirely meaningless to the position I espouse.

This faculty is not functioning AT ALL in many cases outside of prenatal development. But you have already admitted that even if it is not, this is not important - for example, having once possessed this faculty is sufficient for you. An exception to your rule. A caveat.

Yet again you can call me dishonest all you want. I merely thought you had issues with large pieces of text and offered to work with you on this. If you do not require this then so be it, but if you wish to take offence at my offer then this is entirely your issue to deal with and not mine.

No, you tried a cheap, and rather old, debating tactic. I suggest you quit it as it is not getting you anywhere.

nozzferrahhtoo

Again I have no tactic here. You indicated that long text might be trouble for you and I offered to work with you on it. If you have an issue with that then so be it. The issue is yours not mine.

I have laid out my position. If you want to deal with it then I am here for you. If you want to keep claiming I am saying something I am not then I can not help you.

Here is my position again:

Rights appear to come FROM the human faculty of conscience. I think therefore it is to this faculty we assign it. Therefore upon the first rise of this faculty in the foetus until the death of that faculty at death I think the entity has come “alive” in the human sense of rights.

I therefore think we should assign these rights to that faculty (regardless of its day to day level of function) and before it has developed at all I do not see any trouble with engaging in abortion.

nozzferrahhtoo

For those hung up on this infants having consciousness lark. They infact do. All the basic thalamo-cortical circuitry necessary for conscious precepts is in place.

Take this quote from Scientific American:

Consciousness requires a sophisticated network of highly interconnected components, nerve cells. Its physical substrate, the thalamo-cortical complex that provides consciousness with its highly elaborate content, begins to be in place between the 24th and 28th week of gestation. Roughly two months later synchrony of the electroencephalographic (EEG) rhythm across both cortical hemispheres signals the onset of global neuronal integration. Thus, many of the circuit elements necessary for consciousness are in place by the third trimester.

Invasive experiments in rat and lamb pups and observational studies using ultrasound and electrical recordings in humans show that the third-trimester fetus is almost always in one of two sleep states. These stages correspond to rapid-eye-movement (REM) and slow-wave sleep common to all mammals. In late gestation the fetus is in one of these two sleep states 95 percent of the time, separated by brief transitions.

As Hugo Lagercrantz, a pediatrician at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, discovered two decades ago, a massive surge of norepinephrine—more powerful than during any skydive or exposed climb the fetus may undertake in its adult life—as well as the release from anesthesia and sedation that occurs when the fetus disconnects from the maternal placenta, arouses the baby so that it can deal with its new circumstances. It draws its first breath, wakes up and begins to experience life.

On top of this Dr. Peter Wolff of Boston and Professor Heinz Prechtl of the Netherlands describe to us the 6 states of consciousness in new borns. Their work is worth reading.

And if anyone on the thread wants religious sources and not just peer reviewed science you will find at http://www.religioustolerance.org that they say:

26 weeks or 6 months: The fetus 14" long and almost two pounds. The lungs' bronchioles develop. Interlinking of the brain's neurons begins. The higher functions of the fetal brain turn on for the first time. Some rudimentary brain waves can be detected. The fetus will be able to feel pain for the first time. It has become conscious of its surroundings. The fetus has become a sentient human life for the first time.

But I personally do not take peoples word for it. I include that merely for people who like such sources. On science I stick to peer reviewed science such as the paper "The Emergence of Human Consciousness: From Fetal to Neonatal Life" by LAGERCRANTZ, HUGO; CHANGEUX, JEAN-PIERRE in Pediatric Research: March 2009 - Volume 65 - Issue 3 which concludes:

A simple definition of consciousness is sensory awareness of the body, the self, and the world. The fetus may be aware of the body, for example by perceiving pain. It reacts to touch, smell, and sound, and shows facial expressions responding to external stimuli. However, these reactions are probably preprogrammed and have a subcortical nonconscious origin. Furthermore, the fetus is almost continuously asleep and unconscious partially due to endogenous sedation. Conversely, the newborn infant can be awake, exhibit sensory awareness, and process memorized mental representations. It is also able to differentiate between self and nonself touch, express emotions, and show signs of shared feelings.

It is in fact my position that these "shared feelings" are where much of our species morality is based upon but that is another discussion.

Sarah Belle Dougherty in her study of the works of books such as "Infant Culture" by Jane and Joseph Jackson and "The Secret Life of the Unborn Child" by Thomas Verny, M.D. concludes that:

Between 28 to 34 weeks his brain's neural circuits are as advanced as a newborn's and the cerebral cortex is mature enough to support consciousness; a few weeks later brain waves, including those of REM dreams, become distinct. Thus, throughout the third trimester he is equipped with most of the physiological capability of a newborn.

So my position here is that they have this faculty. It may not be operating at the full level that you and I enjoy, but it is still present and my position is not to equivocate on levels of this faculty, but its presence or total absence.

In a discussion on rights which come from this faculty, I find it no great leap to suggest that this faculty is elevated beyond any other concern in the discussion. It certainly is not DNA we give rights to, nor taxonomy, nor limbs or flesh. It is the human mind and once that begins to develop I think we should give the entity all the rights we give to any human mind which they will retain until death.

That part of us which makes us truly human in the sense of culture, humanity, consciousness, rights and morality has arisen in these entities and I think they deserve all the protection that our concept of rights affords them. It is for this reason I would not support abortion after the 16 week cut off I have stipulated.

The Corinthian

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Again I have no tactic here. You indicated that long text might be trouble for you and I offered to work with you on it. If you have an issue with that then so be it. The issue is yours not mine.

Why do you insist on repeating this? I've rejected this as a cynical ploy by yourself. You're not convincing me; who are you trying to convince with your repetition?

I have laid out my position. If you want to deal with it then I am here for you. If you want to keep claiming I am saying something I am not then I can not help you.

You've actually laid out a number of positions, which have been changing as the discussion has progressed. You began, a month ago or so, by discussing conciousness, then this became sentience and a few days ago conscience.

It seems that whenever you 'repeat' your position it changes; you stated it 'again' a few pages back, challenging me to find caveats. I supplied two. You then first claimed that what you stated was covered by what you wrote (which was easily refutable) and then attempted to change your story to say that in reality this was all an iterative process and your changing your story was part of this.

Too many inconsistencies and contradictions, I'm afraid.

Here is my position again:

Rights appear to come FROM the human faculty of conscience. I think therefore it is to this faculty we assign it. Therefore upon the first rise of this faculty in the foetus until the death of that faculty at death I think the entity has come “alive” in the human sense of rights.

Again? Quite different to this. You have now abandoned that "part of us which comes up with this notion of rights in the first place", to human conscience (a different beast altogether). Additionally you have added a "once you're in, you don't lose it" clause, since your earlier declaration.

I therefore think we should assign these rights to that faculty (regardless of its day to day level of function) and before it has developed at all I do not see any trouble with engaging in abortion.

Seeing as this quality is conscience today, I should point out that this has not developed in children until well after birth - infants are extremely egocentric; hide something from their field of vision and they assume it has ceased to exist. Conscience has not yet developed - neurologically, their brains have not yet fully developed. By your definition, they do not yet qualify for rights.

All before we even begin to consider testing your premise (and that is all it is) of ascribing humanity or rights to conciousness / sentience / conscience / whatever-you'll-call-it-next, in the first place.

I'm not sure why I'm even bothering to respond at this stage to you. You appear to be consciously avoiding any direct response to your inconsistencies I've repeatedly raised, resorting instead to repetitive denial and wholesale revisionism. I doubt this post will get anything different.

The Corinthian

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Rights appear to come FROM the human faculty of conscience.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

For those hung up on this infants having consciousness lark. They infact do.

I know they've similar spelling, but you do know that they're not actually the same thing.

AARRRGH

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I fail to see how this is relevant either I am afraid. In fact it appears to support my side rather than yours. Look at your choice of language.

If you do not have an abortion you WILL produce a life. Future tense. In other words at the point of having an abortion you have NOT YET produced one. You are basing your position on what MIGHT be true and not what IS true. This is inherently problematic.

It would make just as much sense to say “If you did not become celibate you will produce a life”. So why is abortion wrong and not celibacy? Or condoms? Or the pill?

Ahh, your logic makes no sense.

Not having sex, and having sex + aborting the unborn child are totally different.

I'm not going to try to convince you. Bye.

drkpower

Nozz, it is impossible to debate with you when the gound under your feet continually shifts from 'when the faculty is not there at all' to 'the time the elements that create it are not even there either' to 'when these parts of the brain.....start to form' to 'the faculty in 'ANY state of operation or maturity'.

If you cant see the difference between & inconsistency in these various positions, which many people have repeatedly explained to you, I dont know what will be gained by further discussion. You can take a horse to water, but you cant make him drink....or even take a sip, it appears....:P

Your position is either completely untenable or you have been unable to explain it convincingly despite many attempts.

But I will leave it with a quote from the opening line of the the peer reviewed paper that you supposedly rely on for your theory.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

On science I stick to peer reviewed science such as the paper "The Emergence of Human Consciousness: From Fetal to Neonatal Life" by LAGERCRANTZ, HUGO; CHANGEUX, JEAN-PIERRE in Pediatric Research: March 2009 - Volume 65 - Issue 3 which concludes:

HUGO wrote: »

Consciousness in general and the birth of consciousness in particular remain as key puzzles confronting the scientific worldview

But you are happy to rely on certain selected analyses and views from certain, no doubt capable, experts to base such an utterly fundamental decision when those same experts, in their opening salvo, acknowledge that the entire area remains a 'puzzle'.

I'll leave it at that.

nozzferrahhtoo

Corinthian,

As I said, I offered my help in good faith. If you want to take insult where none is meant then so be it. It is not my issue.

My position has not changed, much as you want to keep saying over and over it has. However I have laid out my position more than once in the last couple of pages. I guess your insitance it has changed is due to your lack of willingness or capability to deal with it as it stands?

Your caveats fail because from the START I said that I was talking about the faculty of consciousness. Not once did I equivocate on types. Your “caveats” were just to list two differing types of this faculty. However they are still this faculty, so were covered by my position from the start.

So try again, and try and deal with the position as it has been laid out in the last pages.

Consciousness has been shown in infants and new borns and I have laid out a wealth of science peer reviewed papers to support this. Ignore them if you will, but do not presume to think doing so is clever.

nozzferrahhtoo

AARRRGH wrote: »

Ahh, your logic makes no sense.

Not having sex, and having sex + aborting the unborn child are totally different.

I'm not going to try to convince you. Bye.

Not really as by your own admission you WILL produce a life future tense. Hence you have not done so yet. You can not do in the future what you have already completed doing unless you intend to do it again.