Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

aloyisious

recedite wrote: »

Yes, voice recognition also happens within the womb. The foetus can be stimulated into kicking and moving around after recognising a voice, or even the theme tune to mother's favourite TV soap opera.

Excepting that my supplied reference is to the measurable sentience of a born baby, not a feotus in the womb which can only be estimated at by way of scan cinematography or a "hand-on-the-belly" estimated reading. Your's above goes against what Pete29 wrote as his timeline for sentience in a new-born.

Hotblack Desiato

recedite wrote: »

The problem arises here because the state funds the church school, and now wishes to use the school for other state functions (polling booths).

Parish hall, not a school. Which is a strange choice, as there's two schools a couple of hundred metres away which could be used and a community college across the road.

Yes it's legal (subject perhaps to planning law) for the RCC to put these posters on their property, but they can't be there on polling day.

PopePalpatine

I wouldn't be surprised if they get those posters down with seconds to spare before 12am on Friday.

aloyisious

Sentience and consciousness definitions available, plus the awareness angle referencing a person currently present but with a mind concentrated on an issue to the detriment of all others...... https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/4682/what-are-the-differences-between-sentience-consciousness-and-awareness


It seem's sentience and consciousness go hand in glove, in a former and latter way. Due to an early stage of physical development, the feotus can be sentiently aware of stimuli but not understand what the stimuli mean, but when the consciousness develops sufficiently, it can understand the stimuli message or intent and send's a message to the body on how to respond. Up to reaching that level of consciousness, the response to stimuli is without conscious reason, a reflex "I hear you" spasm, as it were though the feotus cannot understand the language or the sound.

As I understand it, consciousness is an ever-increasing level of awareness and understanding of what's happening around us. Cosnciousness also includes the thought-processed understanding of and responses to stimuli, of say, pinpricks or communications. A feotus won't have that level of brain-power.


Thought for the day when it comes to humans; I can also say that what is seen on a scan can be misinterpreted, or due to coincidence in timing, misread. The feotus may well be just breaking wind and moving as a result when the O/P is simultaneously looking at the scan and consciously trying to vocally communicate with the feotus. We'll never know.....

end of the road

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Not that they are sub-human but that they have not yet obtained those qualities that we use to define humanity.

qualities that are only parts of defining humanity, rather then being the qualities that fully define humanity. made out to be the qualities that fully define humanity so as to be able to dehumanise the unborn.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

A decision that can be backed up logically and scientifically and not just a gut feeling.

science only backs up that these qualities are part of what defines humanity. so the decisian to state that humanity is defined by a small few qualities when it suits, cannot be backed up by science and logic.

recedite

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Parish hall, not a school. Which is a strange choice, as there's two schools a couple of hundred metres away which could be used and a community college across the road.
Yes it's legal (subject perhaps to planning law) for the RCC to put these posters on their property, but they can't be there on polling day.

It seems very odd if its not even a school, therefore no state involvement in the building whatsoever on a normal day.
I'm not sure you can say the church is obliged to take down the posters on polling day though. If there is some kind of leasing agreement for the day, maybe it would be in that.

recedite

A question for those wishing to use "sentience" as the benchmark for determining humanity;
What is it that differentiates humans from other animals?
A qualitatitive difference, not a quantitative one. All animals feel sensations and respond to stimuli to some extent. Some are obviously capable of feeling pain, thinking, caring for their young, playing, learning, solving problems, using tools (chimps and crows) pausing to reflect and remember at the graves of dead relatives (elephants).
Apart from the unique difference of "taxonomy" ie no other species is genetically homo sapiens sapiens, which Nozz has already dimissed as unimportant in this debate (because the foetus shares this designation) what exactly is this unique thing that qualifies us as being human?

uptherebels

recedite wrote: »

A question for those wishing to use "sentience" as the benchmark for determining humanity;
What is it that differentiates humans from other animals?
A qualitatitive difference, not a quantitative one. All animals feel sensations and respond to stimuli to some extent. Some are obviously capable of feeling pain, thinking, caring for their young, playing, learning, solving problems, using tools (chimps and crows) pausing to reflect and remember at the graves of dead relatives (elephants).
Apart from the unique difference of "taxonomy" ie no other species is genetically homo sapiens sapiens, which Nozz has already dimissed as unimportant in this debate (because the foetus shares this designation) what exactly is this unique thing that qualifies us as being human?

Self awareness for one

ohnonotgmail

end of the road wrote: »

qualities that are only parts of defining humanity, rather then being the qualities that fully define humanity. made out to be the qualities that fully define humanity so as to be able to dehumanise the unborn.



science only backs up that these qualities are part of what defines humanity. so the decisian to state that humanity is defined by a small few qualities when it suits, cannot be backed up by science and logic.

I will refer to what i replied to you earlier and you decided to ignore

you seemed to have ignored the word "fundamental" or misunderstood what it means.

They are fundamental parts of defining humanity.

Hotblack Desiato

recedite wrote: »

I'm not sure you can say the church is obliged to take down the posters on polling day though.

No posters allowed within 100m of the entrance of the polling station, s147 Electoral Act 1992.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1992/act/23/enacted/en/print#sec147

antiskeptic

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

No posters allowed within 100m of the entrance of the polling station, s147 Electoral Act 1992.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1992/act/23/enacted/en/print#sec147

During the period commencing 30 minutes before the time appointed for the taking of a poll at an election

Get printing guys!

aloyisious

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

No posters allowed within 100m of the entrance of the polling station, s147 Electoral Act 1992.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1992/act/23/enacted/en/print#sec147

It'd be nice if the act included a section requiring the removal of all promotional posters and all plastic ties within 5 working days of the election/referendum ending.

antiskeptic

aloyisious wrote: »

It'd be nice if the act included a section requiring the removal of all promotional posters and all plastic ties within 5 working days of the election/referendum ending.

There is some rule on it, is't there?

Certainly, all sides will want to forget about this one as quickly as possible. We could all do with a break.

aloyisious

antiskeptic wrote: »

There is some rule on it, is't there?

Certainly, all sides will want to forget about this one as quickly as possible. We could all do with a break.

Just got to get past tonight's RTE Prime Time debate.

Jeez: I didn't know Simon Harris was such an attack dog, he's tearing into the other debater's facts and statements, not ceding an inch, and telling off the host as well.

Hitman3000

So Cora Sherlock and the NO campaign spent weeks goading Harris to debate he agrees and Cora runs away, madness. However she made a choice not to travel to RTE and I respect that.

aloyisious

Hitman3000 wrote: »

So Cora Sherlock and the NO campaign spent weeks goading Harris to debate he agrees and Cora runs away, madness. However she made a choice not to travel to RTE and I respect that.

The resultant reduction of debators on the show seem's to have been to the good. There was no repeat of the debacle on the last live debate where one of the guests, Dr Boylan, walked into an audience bashing and handled it well, not replying in kind or losing hiw temper.

The Tonight Show on TV3 has quoted the NO side as saying they offered RTE a replacement [Marie Steen] for Cora but the offer was declined. The host of the Tonight Show has said that it might be because the replacement was on a live debate a few days ago, also it seem's another of the main women debators, Marie Steen, from the NO campaign has pulled out of a live debate on the Pat Kenny show tomorrow on TV3 as well. Peculiar.....

pleas advice

Hitman3000 wrote: »

So Cora Sherlock and the NO campaign spent weeks goading Harris to debate he agrees and Cora runs away, madness. However she made a choice not to travel to RTE and I respect that.

' ...choice'

recedite

uptherebels wrote: »

Self awareness for one

Only in the higher animals, but not unique to humanity.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EjukzL-bJc

aloyisious

pleas advice wrote: »

' ...choice'

Ta. I hadn't noticed the possible deliberate, or unwitting, use of gentle sarcasm with that word, plus that of the "to travel" wording.

robindch

antiskeptic wrote: »

If the chosen approach is a belief-based approach [...] surely one is left with it being an act of faith on the matter?

This is the same use of the same weasel words for which you've been pulled up on many occasions in the past.

Your definition of "faith" reduces you to a nihilist. I'm not sure if this is your intent.

robindch

Fintan O'Toolbox was walking around central Dublin this evening and came across a far-right "flag of Kekistan" - in the photo below, the light green thing in the center of the photo, faintly reminiscent of the Nazi flag.

The flag was attached to a pro-life literature distribution point and it's unclear what it was doing there.

https://twitter.com/FintanOToolbox/status/998947413095264257

Hotblack Desiato

The man holding the flag is dressed as a shrub

aloyisious

antiskeptic wrote: »

Forgive hopping into the discussion - and I may be grabbing the wrong end of the stick. How does one suppose one's approach is the correct approach in the first place.

If the chosen approach is a belief-based approach (in that I think this the best way to go about establishing something) surely one is left with it being an act of faith on the matter?

With your reference to faith, do you mean religious faith-based belief or a faith in science? Cos it's important to tie down what you are referencing in regard to your use of the word "FAITH".

If you mean religious faith, you may want to recall that the main religious faith-belief of this country has faith and trust in the medical branch of science. If you mean faith in medical science, you might need to heed that faith's belief in medical science and make it clear what you mean. At the moment it is obvious that you are using words to avoid giving sensible replies, just stringing people out.

aloyisious

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

The man holding the flag is dressed as a shrub

Maybe a need to disguise US involvement in the NO campaign.

nozzferrahhtoo

recedite wrote: »

Well no, "absence of evidence" does not equate to "evidence of absence". That is a standard scientific assumption which I am adhering to, and you are not.

That is completely not what is happening here. Just like with gods, you are looking at a system and we do not know if there is consciousness or sentience there. We currently have ZERO evidence it is. Therefore if you were to claim there is, or might be, the burden of evidence lies entirely with you to prove that hypothesis.

So it would you failing to adhere to scientific principles here, not me. And worse, as I said, you are playing the theist card of pretending that you do not have to prove your imaginary god is there, but that other people have to prove it is not. And science simply does not work that way.

recedite wrote: »

No the building is not empty, and sub-human is the correct term. You have agreed that the foetus is entirely human from a "taxonomic" POV but then declare that "it lacks sentience". Even if we accept this description, we have something that is not quite a human being, ergo a sub-human. Not "a nothing".

Except the building is empty and sub-human is not the correct term.

In Taxonomy it is "human" all the way down. It is simply one stage of the human life cycle. No stage in a biological cycle of humanity can be "more" or "less" human than any other. Something is either a stage in the human life cycle, or it is not. A fetus is. You are. I am. In terms of the underlying biology none of it is more or less human than anything else.

But it is not Taxonomy that we predicate morality on. Nor should it be.

recedite wrote: »

Number 1 is the original definition, which distinguishes an animal from say, a rock. It feels. For example, if you poke an earthworm, it feels that pain stimulus and tries to escape in the opposite direction. Number 2 is the science fiction definition. This is the one where Data in Star Trek attains sentience because he thinks and behaves much like a human, but one with a better memory.

I am not seeing a distinction there between your two. In both cases you are describing a system that takes sensory input and responds to it. Also neither is really the definitions that we find in actual philosophy. Merely that "it feels" as in it responds to stimulus is not really the definition of consciousness or sentience that is in play in philosophy, let alone moral philosophy. Rather there are definitions such as "There is something it is like to be that system" is one. A definition that would encompass both the worm AND a sentient artificial intelligence equally. For moral philosophy however you have to go one step further. Not only does it have to be like something to be that sentient agent, it would have to be capable of suffering and well being too.

So it seems you have invented two of your own definitions of sentience and then tried to falsify my premises and position using your definitions, rather than mine. Which is an odd way to parse the position of another person.

recedite wrote: »

All tend to be quite difficult to pin down.

Yet as I keep repeating time and time again, the difficulty in pinning things down EXACTLY does not negate a position that only requires that we pin it down enough to understand it is entirely absent.

With the building analogy again, to blow up the building you just need to know there is no people in there. If there ARE people in there you do not have to "pin down" irrelevant aspects about them such as how many of them there are, what they are doing in there, how long they have been there, what they are wearing, or what they look like. Knowing they are in there is enough to stay the explosion. Knowing they are entirely absent from there, means you are safe to blow the bomb.

Our definitions and understanding of consciousness and sentience are far from complete, it is true. But it is not absent. We know and understand plenty about it. And not just 10%, not just 50% but 100% of what we do understand about it tells us it is entirely absent in a 10 week old fetus. The building IS empty, despite your pretense to the contrary.

recedite wrote: »

a) Are we going to help the AI as a fellow human? The answer is NO, because your AI lacks humanity in taxonomic, biological, visual, gut instinct sort of way. Therefore it fails to engender the sort of feelings of empathy that we would naturally have towards fellow humans (born or unborn) The sort of feelings that those on the pro-abortion side must carefully keep under control by objecting vociferously to any exposure to visual images of the unborn, or what actually happens in an abortion.

And the reason we even have things like science is because "gut instinct" is often not just wrong but VERY wrong on many issues. The purpose of rights, ethics and morality is, and should be, focused on the well being of sentient creatures. Creatures that can differentiate between suffering and well being, and reach extremes of both. The platform a sentience is running on is, and should be, entirely irrelevant.

But you have not managed to find a "yes" to my question, which is all my question wanted to highlight. There is no moral or ethical argument that a system that could potentially attain sentience at our level, or even beyond it, has some ethical right to achieve it. Nor do we have any ethical obligation to allow it or assist it. Yet for no reason you have offered to date you assume that just because that potential exists in a meat-platform..... one specifically predicated on Human DNA..... we do.

recedite wrote: »

b) Now we come to the science fiction part. Will we help it out of respect for an alien intelligence? IMO the answer is No. There is no ethical reason to bring into existence an intelligence that would logically turn against humanity and destroy us.

There is no reason to assume it would, but that is a topic for an entirely different thread.

recedite wrote: »

If an alien intelligence arrived from another planet, then it gets more complicated. We would have to recognise their rights, and they would have to recognise ours. If either side failed to do that, there woud be war, and in war one or both sides always lose.

What a horrible moral system that is. One that suggests that we would, could or should recognize their rights purely because we want to avoid war. Thankfully my moral system is not so self centered, selfish and blind. I believe such a species would be deserving of rights solely because they are sentient and can achieve levels of suffering or well being. Nothing to do with me, my species, or our self interest at all.

Cabaal

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

The man holding the flag is dressed as a shrub

Weird...just noticed that,
Now that would make sense if he was in a park or a wood...but in a city?

He needs to be dressed as a bin or electrical cabinet instead!

nozzferrahhtoo

Really interesting that three users of this thread ignore my posts when I talk directly to them, but respond to them when I am writing to others. One user doing that is an anomaly. Several users doing it is odd.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Would you come off it, Nozz. Dozens of users over the years have thoroughly rebutted and dismantled your nonsense sentience arguments.

Oh would you come off it yourself because no, that simply has not happened. a FEW users have run away from it, screeched words like "Human" at it, and outright ignored it. But none of them have once rebutted it. Let alone "dozens".

But by all means lets test that claim of "Dozens". Let us even not hold you to the plural of that word. Cite for me ONE dozen users who have responded to and rebutted it ever. You certainly have not. Recedite is not doing so. And End of the Road just runs away from the conversation every time. So who are the 12 users you have in mind exactly, with a link to them rebutting my position please.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

I myself have debated you many times of course, both here and on Politics.ie and without fail, when holes in your position are pointed out, you just obfuscate over and over and tell users they are making things up.

Firstly I have no awareness of ever having communicated with you on another site. If you are posting there under a different name by all means let me know who you are. However you have not yet shown ANY holes in my position and your pretense that you have is being projected as a pretense that I have dodged such things.

You simply have not done so. ALL you have done, in pretty much every conversation we have had, is post either videos or studies showing some part or other of the fetus either A) moves or responds to a stimulus.

However exactly you think EITHER of those things rebuts the positions I have espoused is beyond me and, I suspect, you too.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

You accused me of lying about a quote to strengthen my position in one thread and when I linked to the report where the quote was made, you then switched to saying that the researchers were just unprofessional.

That is blatant historical revisionism on your part here. What happened in that discussion is that you took something a researcher said and took it WAY too literally (assuming, since you are vague here, we are talking about the same conversation/citation). The report in question was a study of how sounds, like music, played to a fetus resulted in some oral movement. In an attempt to describe what that movement LOOKS LIKE the researcher used some artistic license and described it as looking "like trying to speak". Rather than take that description purely as it was intended, as descriptive, you peddled it out into the thread as if it implied something more.

That is not the researcher being unprofessional per se. Many scientists use artistic license of this form when describing things in papers, and so they should. However a researcher should also be aware that when he is creating a study on a subject that is often emotive and misrepresented, that an artistic description could be wantonly misused and distorted to imply more than it was intended to imply. Which is, essentially, what you have been doing with it.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

I remember the days when you were posting links to your Atheism Ireland essays about abortion (in the late noughties) and the word 'sentience' (new Boardsies will be astonished to hear) didn't appear once. In fact it was The Corinthian who first suggested to you that you were confusing consciousness with sentience in the following exchange

I have no idea what you are trying to achieve here by both lying outright AND appealing to older forms of my current position. I recall linking to, and writing, one single essay on the subject here. Not multiple as you claim. And as you point out yourself this essay was written a DECADE ago and of course as I grow, learn, study and more my position is going to attain more depth and nuance over time. Is my position NOW so strong that the best you can do is try to attack positions I held 10 years ago? Your desperation is showing and is both palpable and egregious at this point.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

And from that moment on you haven't stopped using the word of course. That was also around the time that you used to suggest that a woman who aborted a sentient fetus, or even threatened to, should be imprisoned: You still believe that? Just curious, as I don't think I've ever seen you say it since.

As your cohort did at the time, and you are doing here, there was not a confusion on my part between consciousness and sentience so much as a pretense that the position I was espousing was somehow predicated on the differences between them. In other words I was not confusing the two, it was the user assuming the differences between the two were relevant. They are not.

But if you think they are, do not take my assertion as gospel. Do what your cohort not just slightly but ENTIRELY failed to do at the time. List the distinctions you think exist between the two, and then see which ones (and explain how) somehow are an issue for the position I espouse. I sincerely doubt you will be any more capable of doing it than he was.... or that you will use any less obfuscation to hide that fact when you realize it yourself than he did.

I am not sure what you think it is you are asking if I still believe. There is a very important "IF" in the statement you are quoting. But yes, I believe that IF it is established that two beings have a right to life and IF one kills the other without cause, justification or reason..... then the killer is a murderer and should be treated and processed as such. What aspect of that are you finding relevant here or in some way problematic in relation to the rest of my position on the subject of abortion?

The issue for me is that we know many things about what predicated consciousness and sentience in an entity and the fetus has NONE of it. There is simply no reason to consider it an entity worthy of rights therefore, nor of our moral and ethical concern.

nozzferrahhtoo

recedite wrote: »

What is it that differentiates humans from other animals? A qualitatitive difference, not a quantitative one. All animals feel sensations and respond to stimuli to some extent.

I think it highly important before answering such a question to make it abundantly clear that any answer should be entirely contextual. The purpose of asking the question should control the answer given.

If for example we were talking about biological taxonomy, then the Human DNA Genome is more than enough of an answer. We want a way to differentiate one species from another in that context, then DNA is sufficient.

However in the context of THIS thread we are discussing things like a right to life. A right we do not appear to think any other species has given we do not protect that right in nature.... happy as we are to have animals kill each other with wild abandon and sometimes in the most obscene and torturous ways......... nor do we allow it to stay our own hand as we murder life in the billions on a daily basis from single celled life to higher animals.

So in THIS context I think the differentiation has to lie in the fact that human consciousness and sentience is the source of, arbiter of, and mostly the target of concepts like rights, morality and ethics. There are some science findings showing very low levels of these in creatures like apes but for the most part it is true to say we are the sole source and target of it. We have concepts like "animal rights" which are essentially just a subset of human rights.

It is solely us, not any other animal it seems, and certainly not the universe itself, that holds concepts of "Value". Concepts that suggest things like art, well being, sentience or even life itself has "value". And since we have those concepts, and are the sole arbiters of them, it places a strong onus on us to be very clear what it is we value, and why we value it. And if "value" is to be important then the very source of it.... consciousness/sentience...... has to be of value too.

recedite wrote: »

Apart from the unique difference of "taxonomy" ie no other species is genetically homo sapiens sapiens, which Nozz has already dimissed as unimportant in this debate (because the foetus shares this designation) what exactly is this unique thing that qualifies us as being human?

If people want to know what I "dismiss" things (if in fact I even did "dismiss" them rather than deal with them directly) they mind find it more useful to ask ME if and why I did it, rather than allow you to invent motivations for doing so on my behalf.

aloyisious

For what it's worth, info-wise, according to the Irish Times Maria Steen has withdrawn her withdrawal notice to the Pat Kenny Show debate on TV3 tonight and will, it seem's, appear on the show. It's beginning to look like the withdrawals are campaign manoeuvres like the witness - "we were denied representation" - ones before the Oireachtas Abortion Committee hearings.

It might be a shouting-over-the-O/P event, given the guest-list.... Ms Steen, who represents the Iona Institute, is due to appear on the The Pat Kenny Show alongside Senator Ronan Mullen advocating a No vote. The two are to debate Minister for Social Protection Regina Doherty and Amnesty Ireland’s Colm O’Gorman, who are calling for a Yes vote.

Edited above to put in title of correct TV3 show for this evening.

The Examiner has this; Pro-life group Love Both have released a statement on their decision not to take part in last night's Prime Time debate on Friday's referendum. The statement released by Love Both said: "We felt RTÉ’s decision to invite a pro-repeal obstetrician on the panel and no medic from the pro-life side was utterly unacceptable. "Hundreds of GPs have publicly criticised his proposal yet RTÉ throughout this entire debate has never held a single panel discussion featuring GPs from opposing sides. "There is no excuse for this whatsoever."

"No serious effort was made by RTÉ to achieve balance on the panel. Given the seriousness of the referendum vote on Friday, we believed that they had to be called out on their slanted line-up.

In a video statement this morning, Cora Sherlock thanked RTÉ for offering her a slot on the Prime Time panel.

"For the avoidance of doubt, I want to make it clear that at no stage did I pull out of this debate."

.....

One thing I recall about the TV debates I've seen so far is that GP doctors for both sides did in fact take part in the debates so I'm not sure what part of balance the NO campaign people don't get. The NO campaign did have obstetricians appear for their side in debates.

Hotblack Desiato

Pro tip: Putting all those dots in stops the text flowing properly and is really annoying, posts which are hard to read don't get read. Not everyone's screen or window will be as wide as yours.