Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
being pro life outside the political arena
Topic Started: Nov 12 2008, 06:24 AM (4,733 Views)
Daniel
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
kathyk
Nov 15 2008, 06:25 AM
Jolly
Nov 15 2008, 06:19 AM
Planned Parenthood is founded upon many of the same principles that created Auschwitz.
Posted Image
:silly:

(Hi Kathy!)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Quote:
 
Well if one defines the term "seed" not to include rooting then by definition a system that is rooting is not defined as belonging to the category "seed" but again that's just semantics. If we wanted to we can invent a term that encompasses both a rooting acorn and a non-rooting acorn but not a mature oak (using for instance the criteria of sexual maturity).


You keep making this thing of semantics. I really don't get what you are on about. It is obvious that we use seed to describe one condition, seedling another, sapling another and mature another. But a seed is significantly different from seedling/sapling/mature tree. An ungerminated seed does not grow. A seed that has been germinated is no longer a seed -- it is now something quite different, namely growing. It does not matter what term we use, as long as we use stable terms to describe the same sort of thing. So your discussion of semantics has no relevance to understanding the topic and seems only to serve to obfuscate.

I suspect that is what you intend, since you make some very tedious arguments such as
Quote:
 
Well if you want to think of a fertilised egg as "something more" than an unfertilised egg and sperm then... ok, but equally the system following a cellular division where one now has two cells rather than one can be claimed to be "something more" than the newly fertilised egg and indeed every step in time can be thought of as "something more". It's a fairly uninformative statement though and more accurate would be "something different".

A teenager is "something more" than a toddler quantitatively -- more matter. That is not what is being discussed, and it is tedious that you seem to need this clarified. A zygote grows -- neither an egg nor a sperm grow. Again it is tedious to have to point this sort of thing out, as if "constant chemical changes" were being discussed.

I am not sure you really understand what semantics is about if you think it is some sort of intrinsic error to grasping and defining reality. Semantics is simply the study of the relationship between symbols (words in this case) and their meaning. it has to do with what is being signified. But all words have meaning-- we use words to signify things or concepts. It is again tedious to have to point out the obvious that "cat" is set in opposition to every other sort of thing that is not cat, such as dog, when the phrase "cat embryo" adequately defines the subject.

Likewise human is set against everything that is not human when the term "human embryo adequately defines the subject. But I suspect you really do understand all this, since elsewise you would never be able to know what you are talking about regarding anything.

The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moonbat
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
Quote:
 

You keep making this thing of semantics. I really don't get what you are on about. It is obvious that we use seed to describe one condition, seedling another, sapling another and mature another. But a seed is significantly different from seedling/sapling/mature tree.


I raise the issue of semantics because i think you make mistakes in the way you try to think about the world you often make statements or ask questions that don't mean appear to mean anything i.e. appear to be about nothing more our choice of words e.g.

Quote:
 

If we were talking about cats, would you say that the cat embryo is not a cat in an early stage of feline development?


If this question is not about words what is it about? It's certainly true that given a cat embryo there are certain environments which result in a non-vanishing probability that one will be able to recognise a cat at some point in the future. But that's not what the question asks the question seems to just be about labels.

ln terms of the seed being 'significantly' different from seedling/sappling/mature tree well whether we consider a characteristic significant or not is up to us. If one is interested in photosynthesis then the sappling/mature tree is significantly different to the seedling and the acorn, it one is interested in building a house then the mature tree is also significantly different from the seedling/acorn. etc. etc.

Quote:
 

An ungerminated seed does not grow. A seed that has been germinated is no longer a seed -- it is now something quite different, namely growing. It does not matter what term we use, as long as we use stable terms to describe the same sort of thing. So your discussion of semantics has no relevance to understanding the topic and seems only to serve to obfuscate.

I suspect that is what you intend, since you make some very tedious arguments such as
Quote:
 

Well if you want to think of a fertilised egg as "something more" than an unfertilised egg and sperm then... ok, but equally the system following a cellular division where one now has two cells rather than one can be claimed to be "something more" than the newly fertilised egg and indeed every step in time can be thought of as "something more". It's a fairly uninformative statement though and more accurate would be "something different".


A teenager is "something more" than a toddler quantitatively -- more matter. That is not what is being discussed, and it is tedious that you seem to need this clarified. A zygote grows -- neither an egg nor a sperm grow. Again it is tedious to have to point this sort of thing out, as if "constant chemical changes" were being discussed.


Hrrm as if chemical changes were being discussed? You were the one who said:

Quote:
 

Fertilization has occurred and a different thing is going on chemically.


Anyhow by "something more" you meant that "it grows"? Well if that is the criteria then presumably seedlings and saplings are "something more" than acorns and mature oak trees that have stopped growing.

Quote:
 

I am not sure you really understand what semantics is about if you think it is some sort of intrinsic error to grasping and defining reality. Semantics is simply the study of the relationship between symbols (words in this case) and their meaning. it has to do with what is being signified. But all words have meaning-- we use words to signify things or concepts. It is again tedious to have to point out the obvious that "cat" is set in opposition to every other sort of thing that is not cat, such as dog, when the phrase "cat embryo" adequately defines the subject.


I'm not objecting to breaking up reality into manageable chunks and using different words to refer to those chunks, only to the confusion between our semantic choices and the actual world.

Quote:
 

Likewise human is set against everything that is not human when the term "human embryo adequately defines the subject. But I suspect you really do understand all this, since elsewise you would never be able to know what you are talking about regarding anything.


When you refer to "a human embryo" i don't have any practical issue - i can picture examples of what you mean (though the category is of course horribly fuzzy), but when you say a human embryo is important *because* it's a human embryo then that says nothing at all, when you say a human embryo is important *because* it's a human in a particular stage of development then that also says nothing at all, or atleast if it does say something, if the statement is supposed to mean "you can watch an example of the set "human embryo" and given the right set of circumstances there's a decent chance you will see it gradually change into an example of the set "human child" or "human adult"" then that applies to innumerable other systems e.g. any sperm/egg pair.

The issue with semantics is because you have a criteria of "thingness" you think that a fertilised egg is one 'kind of thing' and an embryo is the same 'kind of thing' and an adult is the same 'kind of thing' and a dead body is a different 'kind of thing' and a sperm egg pair is either two "things" or it's a different 'kind of thing'. It is that notion of thingness as some kind of tangible component of the reali world which is the confusion of semantics for reality. We can choose how to classify things. The question of relevence to this debate is "what criterea do we consider important for questions involving ethics", my answer is conscious experience. That is, what I care about are the mental experience of minds in the universe.
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Daniel
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Wouldn't someone of IT's religious persuasion simply believe that a fertilized egg is a unique human life as ordained by God? I mean isn't it really as simple (and unavoidable) as that? If that's what you mean, IT, then why not just say it? It's like when you say your arguments against gay marriage are not based in your religious views. Fertilized eggs are unique human beings, to you, and gays are 'disordered,' to you. It's strange watching you argue with a scientist on his terms, when yours are obviously very different.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dewey
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
An argument may be argued, and believed, from multiple paths, Daniel. Just because someone holds a position that's integrally part of his faith doesn't mean that there aren't legitimate arguments for it on the basis of criteria other than religious conviction.
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685.

"Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous

"Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011

I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Daniel
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Dewey
Nov 19 2008, 03:59 AM
An argument may be argued, and believed, from multiple paths, Daniel. Just because someone holds a position that's integrally part of his faith doesn't mean that there aren't legitimate arguments for it on the basis of criteria other than religious conviction.
So there's an argument that a fertilized egg is a unique human person that doesn't involve God? That would seem to be a weak argument to me (I'm assuming that would be because if you let nature take its course it will become one-- which really doesn't make sense- if it was one it wouldn't need to become one).

Are all religious arguments consonant with reason? I wouldn't think so, and I don't mean that as a criticism.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
Dewey
Nov 19 2008, 03:59 AM
An argument may be argued, and believed, from multiple paths, Daniel. Just because someone holds a position that's integrally part of his faith doesn't mean that there aren't legitimate arguments for it on the basis of criteria other than religious conviction.
I don't believe that it's a coincidence that almost everybody who is aggressively anti-choice is also a Christian. Well, Muslims probably are too, but we don't see many of those 'round these parts.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!



Quote:
 
whether we consider a characteristic significant or not is up to us.
Here is the core of your error. A characteristic is necessarily significant, because it signifies a characteristic. That BTW is not a tautology, it is an essential semantical consideration. What value we might place on a a characteristic is up for discussion: whether race or hair color or stage of development determines value or ethical consideration -- but you are using "significant" to describe ethical import, not categorization of the thing under consideration.

Unless you can correctly first categorize something, it is impossible to make a ration judgment about its ethical import. You haven't even gotten to the first step in that process.

You keep lapsing into this sort sloppy thinking while wrongly thinking there is some sort of semantic trouble involving labels. It is not about labels, it is about what the thing is. For all of your claim that you are really interested in the reality apart from "semantics", you seem completely mired in an epistemological morass of your own devising based on labels.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Frank_W
Member Avatar
Resident Misanthrope
From a Biblical standpoint, (from what I've read), God formed Adam from the dust of the earth, and then blew the breath of life into him. To me, this suggests that the soul, consciousness, and all of the spiritual attributes that we ascribe to human beings, enter the physical vessel at the moment of the first breath.

Just thought I'd throw that out there... :unsure:
Anatomy Prof: "The human body has about 20 sq. meters of skin."
Me: "Man, that's a lot of lampshades!"
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
John D'Oh
Nov 19 2008, 04:09 AM
Dewey
Nov 19 2008, 03:59 AM
An argument may be argued, and believed, from multiple paths, Daniel. Just because someone holds a position that's integrally part of his faith doesn't mean that there aren't legitimate arguments for it on the basis of criteria other than religious conviction.
I don't believe that it's a coincidence that almost everybody who is aggressively anti-choice is also a Christian. Well, Muslims probably are too, but we don't see many of those 'round these parts.
It probably wasn't a coincidence that in the first few centuries after Christ the only opposition to infanticide in the Roman empire were Christians.

And for the umpteenth time, I was prolife from my public grade school and high school science classes, long before I was a Christian. I doubt I would have become Christian if Christianity didn't promote justice and defend innocent life.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Daniel
Nov 19 2008, 04:05 AM
Dewey
Nov 19 2008, 03:59 AM
An argument may be argued, and believed, from multiple paths, Daniel. Just because someone holds a position that's integrally part of his faith doesn't mean that there aren't legitimate arguments for it on the basis of criteria other than religious conviction.
So there's an argument that a fertilized egg is a unique human person that doesn't involve God? That would seem to be a weak argument to me (I'm assuming that would be because if you let nature take its course it will become one-- which really doesn't make sense- if it was one it wouldn't need to become one).

Are all religious arguments consonant with reason? I wouldn't think so, and I don't mean that as a criticism.
The problem is with this misplaced ethical consideration of the abstract concept of "person", rather than properly on the concrete thing "human being".

We first have to know what a thing is before we can judge what its ethical or moral import is.

The common tactic in making pro abortion arguments is to shift terms to avoid ethical problems -- the embryo is reduced to "blind chemicals" or "embryonic matter", or the discussion abstracts to "humanity" or "personhood" or some other such concept, since no one seems to be honest enough to say "yes, it is a human being, and yes I think we can kill innocent human beings".

The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Copper
Member Avatar
Shortstop
John D'Oh
Nov 19 2008, 04:09 AM
I don't believe that it's a coincidence that almost everybody who is aggressively anti-choice is also a Christian.

By anti-choice do you mean anti-pro-death?

How did you find out that almost all of them are Christian?
The Confederate soldier was peculiar in that he was ever ready to fight, but never ready to submit to the routine duty and discipline of the camp or the march. The soldiers were determined to be soldiers after their own notions, and do their duty, for the love of it, as they thought best. Carlton McCarthy
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
Copper
Nov 19 2008, 11:28 AM
John D'Oh
Nov 19 2008, 04:09 AM
I don't believe that it's a coincidence that almost everybody who is aggressively anti-choice is also a Christian.

By anti-choice do you mean anti-pro-death?

How did you find out that almost all of them are Christian?
He asked them, of course. Each and every one.

Do you have any evidence that he didn't?
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
Actually, God told me it was true in a dream. Well OK, it might not have been God - I fell asleep in front of the TV, it might have been Bill O'Reilly or that other fat bloke - Glenn somebody. Pretty much indistinguishable from God at any rate.

By anti-choice I actually meant 'LIKE FREAKING HITLER BUT WITHOUT THE MOUSTACHE AND THE AUSTRIAN ACCENT!' but I was being polite because I didn't want to generate bad feelings.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Frank_W
Member Avatar
Resident Misanthrope
I've been working on my goosestepping, John. I'm getting better at it. :devilgrin:
Anatomy Prof: "The human body has about 20 sq. meters of skin."
Me: "Man, that's a lot of lampshades!"
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Copper
Member Avatar
Shortstop
John D'Oh
Nov 19 2008, 01:36 PM

By anti-choice I actually meant 'LIKE FREAKING HITLER BUT WITHOUT THE MOUSTACHE AND THE AUSTRIAN ACCENT!' but I was being polite because I didn't want to generate bad feelings.

That choice thing really is funny - isn't it?

Who says Supreme Court justices don't have senses of humor?

Can you imagine if that caught on and they started justifying everything based on a right to choose?

What a hoot!

Well Hitler chose to do it, so it's OK. He has the right to choose.
The Confederate soldier was peculiar in that he was ever ready to fight, but never ready to submit to the routine duty and discipline of the camp or the march. The soldiers were determined to be soldiers after their own notions, and do their duty, for the love of it, as they thought best. Carlton McCarthy
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moonbat
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
Quote:
 

Here is the core of your error. A characteristic is necessarily significant, because it signifies a characteristic. That BTW is not a tautology, it is an essential semantical consideration.


:lol:

Quote:
 

What value we might place on a a characteristic is up for discussion: whether race or hair color or stage of development determines value or ethical consideration -- but you are using "significant" to describe ethical import, not categorization of the thing under consideration.

Unless you can correctly first categorize something, it is impossible to make a ration judgment about its ethical import. You haven't even gotten to the first step in that process.


We can dream up as many or as few categories as suits us. For instance we could classify distinguishable systems by mass, or by charge or using innumerable other more complex schemes.

I suspect that the common sense style way of categorising the world that you seem unable to escape from is ultimately an abstract statistical classifier (or set of classifiers) that has turned out to be evolutionarily useful. [In a way the kind of mistakes you make (insisting that at fertilised egg is the "same thing" as a child or adult or baby etc.) are a bit like our tendency to eat too much sugar, i.e. an evolved behaviour that was reproductively successfull in our evolutionary past but which can become a but of a liability when it is transplanted into a different context.]

Quote:
 

You keep lapsing into this sort sloppy thinking while wrongly thinking there is some sort of semantic trouble involving labels. It is not about labels, it is about what the thing is. For all of your claim that you are really interested in the reality apart from "semantics", you seem completely mired in an epistemological morass of your own devising based on labels.


There is nothing wrong with using labels, we need to use labels to think about or talk about the world around us. But to me you seem to confuse the labelling process for the world which is being labelled. What else would lead you to ask/state some of the meaningless questions/statements that you ask/state (e.g. the example question i quoted before).
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
I have no idea why you laugh. We perceive a distinction and the very act of perception entails a judgment that requires classification and categorization. For you to say "whether we consider a characteristic significant or not is up to us." is a ridiculous statement -- it is necessarily significant of something that distinguishes. You are denying your own mind and process of judgment to hold what you wrote.

Quote:
 
insisting that at fertilised egg is the "same thing" as a child or adult or baby etc.)
I have repeated clarified that that is the same per item or unit. From your epistemology, you are not the same item that you were yesterday. Or the day before... regressing to the original zygote. I don't see how that is epistemologically sustainable.
Quote:
 
But to me you seem to confuse the labelling process for the world which is being labelled.

Since I don't do that, I have no idea of what you mean.

Quote:
 
That is, what I care about are the mental experience of minds in the universe.
I understand that. So again, a newborn has no mental experience of mind, and therefore no ethical import. So it can be killed with impunity in your ethic. Got it -- ethic import comes with a developed faculty.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moonbat
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
Quote:
 

I have no idea why you laugh. We perceive a distinction and the very act of perception entails a judgment that requires classification and categorization.


We can percieve a difference without recognising what the difference is. Take pictures and alternate between them once every second or so, ask people whether there is a difference they will be able to say yes or no much faster than they will be able to articulate what that difference is.

Further one can classify a given "difference" in many different ways - e.g. suppose i have two different pictures, if i can describe how one can morph one picture into another that is a description of the difference between the pictures
(for armed with such an account i can generate one picture from the other).

One way do so would be to list the position of all the pixels that differ between the two pictures along with the difference between the colour values for those differing pixels, another (more approximate) way would be to have a big library of shapes and fit the library of shapes onto both pictures and then note down both the shapes used and the difference in coordinates of those shapes between the two pictures, infact there are innumerable different ways of describing how to get to one picture from the other.

That we use one (or possibly more than one) method intutively without having to think much about it has nothing to do with what's in the pictures or the actual difference between them.

Quote:
 

For you to say "whether we consider a characteristic significant or not is up to us." is a ridiculous statement -- it is necessarily significant of something that distinguishes. You are denying your own mind and process of judgment to hold what you wrote.


I just meant that whether we consider something important is up to us. Whether you consider it significant that the DNA in a fertilised egg and a skin cell is the same is up to you.

Quote:
 

I have repeated clarified that that is the same per item or unit.


What does that mean?

Quote:
 

From your epistemology, you are not the same item that you were yesterday. Or the day before... regressing to the original zygote. I don't see how that is epistemologically sustainable.


I don't understand this either - what does epistemologically sustainable mean? If i want to i can call the person today and the person yesterday the same "item". (It's certainly intutive to think that way - though one can see the intuition break down when considering various thought experiments involving duplication of brains) but if i want to i can call the person today and the person yesterday "different items" and say there is a whole series of different "items" each leading on to the next then i can do that too. It makes no difference to what actually going on in the world.

Quote:
 

Since I don't do that, I have no idea of what you mean.


But you do do it, or atleast you seem to me to do it.

Quote:
 

I understand that. So again, a newborn has no mental experience of mind, and therefore no ethical import. So it can be killed with impunity in your ethic. Got it -- ethic import comes with a developed faculty.


New borns seem aware to some degree, they certainly react to a broad range of stimuli - i mean if they aren't aware at all, that's the same as saying they are little robots. If they really are little robots, just blind matter reacting like a computer does - if there is no experience of pain or red or anything we would think of as subjective experience (which is a pretty unintutive idea itself) then i don't think there is anything there to care about. If that is the case then it is impossible to do anything in or against the newborn's best interests because it has no interests.

i'm not convinced that is true though, indeed I suspect it's not. Of course regardless our evolutionary drives will still be there. The intense love that people feel for their new borns would be undiminished by such a revelation. (and of course it is possible for something to be in the best interests of the parents of the newborn - like not harming it)
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Moonbat
Nov 19 2008, 04:14 PM
Quote:
 

I have no idea why you laugh. We perceive a distinction and the very act of perception entails a judgment that requires classification and categorization.


We can percieve a difference without recognising what the difference is.
I don't follow. Is "recognise" operative for you in some immediate sense (as if it did not require reflection or internalization to be able to judge and understand the difference?) If so, it seems the first judgment is the very act of perception of difference -- something is signified. "What" the difference is requires additional reflection-- in the case of your photo is it in the image itself, or the way light reflects off the image perhaps due to an imperfection in the paper, etc. Regardless, you seem to be talking about something very different from what we were discussing regarding the significance of characteristics.

Quote:
 

Take pictures and alternate between them once every second or so, ask people whether there is a difference they will be able to say yes or no much faster than they will be able to articulate what that difference is.
Again, I don't know what is the point of that. A full sentence takes longer to speak than a simple yes or no. And the mind will recognize a difference more quickly than it will understand the difference since perception and ideation is not instantaneous (though I'd guess both occur at the speed of light -- or aural perception at the speed of sound). Still, you seem to be talking about something quite other than my point.
Quote:
 


Further one can classify a given "difference" in many different ways - e.g. suppose i have two different pictures, if i can describe how one can morph one picture into another that is a description of the difference between the pictures
(for armed with such an account i can generate one picture from the other).

One way do so would be to list the position of all the pixels that differ between the two pictures along with the difference between the colour values for those differing pixels, another (more approximate) way would be to have a big library of shapes and fit the library of shapes onto both pictures and then note down both the shapes used and the difference in coordinates of those shapes between the two pictures, infact there are innumerable different ways of describing how to get to one picture from the other.

That we use one (or possibly more than one) method intutively without having to think much about it has nothing to do with what's in the pictures or the actual difference between them.
Whether we have to think much or little is not the point. We have to think, and to categorize and classify in order to understand. All of this is based on the perception of characteristics which signify difference.

Quote:
 
Quote:
 

For you to say "whether we consider a characteristic significant or not is up to us." is a ridiculous statement -- it is necessarily significant of something that distinguishes. You are denying your own mind and process of judgment to hold what you wrote.


I just meant that whether we consider something important is up to us. Whether you consider it significant that the DNA in a fertilised egg and a skin cell is the same is up to you.


Which is what I earlier wrote when I pointed out that you are using "significant" in a different sense than I was.

Quote:
 
Quote:
 

I have repeated clarified that that is the same per item or unit.


What does that mean?

It does not seem obscure. *you* are the same unit of organized matter that you were yesterday and you were in utero. Even if every atom in your body is different (as so we are told) from then to now, *you* are the same unit. Your value (in my schema) is not based on your developed faculty of ratiocination or your ability to have a mental experience but on your very existence as a human being.

Quote:
 
Quote:
 

From your epistemology, you are not the same item that you were yesterday. Or the day before... regressing to the original zygote. I don't see how that is epistemologically sustainable.


I don't understand this either - what does epistemologically sustainable mean?
By your schema you cannot be sure if your mother is your mother, or your girlfriend is your girlfriend, from one nanosecond to the next. You can not be certain that you in England or even on the planet Earth from one moment to the next. If the human being is not one thing through the course of its life from zygote to death, why should anything else be one thing?
Quote:
 

If i want to i can call the person today and the person yesterday the same "item". (It's certainly intutive to think that way - though one can see the intuition break down when considering various thought experiments involving duplication of brains) but if i want to i can call the person today and the person yesterday "different items" and say there is a whole series of different "items" each leading on to the next then i can do that too. It makes no difference to what actually going on in the world.


The intuition would only break down if the thought experiment yielded a result that contradicted and disproved the intuition. Our intuition tells us that the sun revolves around the earth, but our knowledge tells us the opposite. Hence knowledge trumps. But thought experiment per se cannot trump intuition.

Quote:
 
Quote:
 

Since I don't do that, I have no idea of what you mean.


But you do do it, or atleast you seem to me to do it.
OK, but I don't. :hat:

Quote:
 
Quote:
 

I understand that. So again, a newborn has no mental experience of mind, and therefore no ethical import. So it can be killed with impunity in your ethic. Got it -- ethic import comes with a developed faculty.


New borns seem aware to some degree, they certainly react to stimulus - i mean if they aren't aware at all, that's the same as saying they are little robots. If they really are little robots just blind matter reacting like a computer - if there is no experience of pain or red, or anything we would call subjective experience (which is a pretty unintutive idea itself) then i don't think there is anything there to care about. If that is the case then it is impossible to do anything in or against the newborn's best interests because it has no interests.

i'm not convinced that is true though, indeed I suspect it's not. Of course none of that affects our evolutionary drives and the intense love that people feel for their new borns (and of course it is possible to something in the best interests of the parents of the newborn - like not harm it)
In utero humans react to pain, yawn, dream, suck their thumbs, etc. from a very early stage and while they are yet legally open game for abortion. Brain waves from 6 weeks. Have you seen the film "Silent Scream" which clearly shows the 12 week old embryo in pain reflex and agitation to the disruption of the uterus? By your definition, that means they are not robots -- they experience pain. I see no reason that you should not be extending the criteria you outline to very much earlier than a new born.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
brenda
Member Avatar
..............
Are you guys having fun yet?
“Weeds are flowers, too, once you get to know them.”
~A.A. Milne
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Just warming up. Can I have some fresh baked chocolate chip cookies and milk? :)
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
George K
Member Avatar
Finally
Last time I looked, this was the 22nd most popular thread (as measured by replies). Of course, my worthless post just made a contribution.
A guide to GKSR: Click

"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... "
- Mik, 6/14/08


Nothing is as effective as homeopathy.

I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles.
- Klaus, 4/29/18
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Daniel
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
ivorythumper
Nov 19 2008, 11:03 AM
Daniel
Nov 19 2008, 04:05 AM
Dewey
Nov 19 2008, 03:59 AM
An argument may be argued, and believed, from multiple paths, Daniel. Just because someone holds a position that's integrally part of his faith doesn't mean that there aren't legitimate arguments for it on the basis of criteria other than religious conviction.
So there's an argument that a fertilized egg is a unique human person that doesn't involve God? That would seem to be a weak argument to me (I'm assuming that would be because if you let nature take its course it will become one-- which really doesn't make sense- if it was one it wouldn't need to become one).

Are all religious arguments consonant with reason? I wouldn't think so, and I don't mean that as a criticism.
The problem is with this misplaced ethical consideration of the abstract concept of "person", rather than properly on the concrete thing "human being".

We first have to know what a thing is before we can judge what its ethical or moral import is.

The common tactic in making pro abortion arguments is to shift terms to avoid ethical problems -- the embryo is reduced to "blind chemicals" or "embryonic matter", or the discussion abstracts to "humanity" or "personhood" or some other such concept, since no one seems to be honest enough to say "yes, it is a human being, and yes I think we can kill innocent human beings".

Camille Paglia makes that exact argument, so it's not fair to say that it's not been done. Sheesh. :rolleyes:

:lol:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lindy
Member Avatar
Middle Aged Carp
George K
Nov 19 2008, 06:26 PM
Last time I looked, this was the 22nd most popular thread (as measured by replies). Of course, my worthless post just made a contribution.
Ok, maybe not an accountant. Maybe a statistician? :nerd: :shifty:
Kubota B-Series Tractors
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ringo - "I am the best drummer in the world."
Lennon - "He's not even the best drummer in the band."
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums. Reliable service with over 8 years of experience.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply