View Full Version : (When does human life begin) - Moved from "Who Will Win 2016 Election?
That's fine and dandy for animals. But show me a society that had "tiers" of rights for people and wasn't horribly oppressive. It's a horrifying idea.
The "tier" doesn't apply to individual people - however it defines people as a whole as having human rights because they have a currently existing consciousness. An embryo however does not have this.
That isn't the pro-life definition. The pro life definition is that human life deserves rights, not anything with "DNA."
By what metric then is an embryo a "human life"?
A sperm cell is a form of life, but the answer most often given is that an embryo has a complete DNA, while a sperm cell does not.
However a tree has a complete DNA, but does not have rights like humans an animals - because it has no brain and therefore no consciousness.
At this point the answer I usually get is that a tree doesn't have the potential to have a consciousness - so in essence the opposition isn't a belief that an embryo actually is a human life, but rather that a human life is simply being prevented from existing to begin with - and a similar argument could be made against birth control pills.
...and at this point, they will simply revert back to the "DNA" claim, and the circular reasoning begins again.
Sir Toose
08-03-15, 11:06 AM
However it's a biological fact that human consciousness doesn't begin at conception, but at the point which brain activity begins.
------
The "tier" doesn't apply to individual people - however it defines people as a whole as having human rights because they have a currently existing consciousness. An embryo however does not have this.
You've used this argument twice now. Consciousness/Sentience is still largely a mystery. It's probably a good idea not to throw around words like 'fact' when you really mean 'belief'.
Human and animal rights are loosely defined in practice by their "tier" of consciousness - which is why lions are granted more "rights" than mosquito, but less than humans.
Granted by whom?
You've used this argument twice now. Consciousness/Sentience is still largely a mystery. It's probably a good idea not to throw around words like 'fact' when you really mean 'belief'.
No, it's a fact that a brain is perquisite for a consciousness.
http://io9.com/scientists-accidentally-discover-the-brains-consciousne-1600230950
Feel free to show me where the brain is in this though :cool:
http://s53.photobucket.com/user/summer_cannibal/media/zygote.jpg
Granted by whom?
Legally and historically. People don't grant rights to trees for example because despite being "alive", they have no brain or consciousness.
Since even a mosquito has a tiny consciousness, but an embryo has none whatsoever, there's no rational reason to claim aborting an embryo is taking a life.
The "tier" doesn't apply to individual people - however it defines people as a whole as having human rights because they have a currently existing consciousness. An embryo however does not have this.
My question wasn't predicated on the idea of it applying to individual people. It applies all the same: show me a society that had "tiers" of rights for people and wasn't horribly oppressive.
By what metric then is an embryo a "human life"?
It is inarguably a living organism, and it is of the genus homo sapien. Calling it anything else is blatantly unscientific.
A sperm cell is a form of life, but the answer most often given is that an embryo has a complete DNA, while a sperm cell does not.
That's one pretty important difference, yes.
However a tree has a complete DNA, but does not have rights like humans an animals - because it has no brain and therefore no consciousness.
It doesn't have rights because it has tree DNA. The distinction isn't whether or not something has DNA, it's whether or not something is human. What you're saying is akin to claiming true and false statements are the same because they're both made up of letters.
At this point the answer I usually get is that a tree doesn't have the potential to have a consciousness - so in essence the opposition isn't a belief that an embryo actually is a human life, but rather that a human life is simply being prevented from existing to begin with - and a similar argument could be made against birth control pills.
A sperm is not merely potential, it is contingent potential. A sperm can become a human life if a number of other things happen first. Its humanity is contingent on those things, and those things are not givens. A fertilized embryo, on the other hand, has no such contingency: it is already a human life. Whereas a sperm needs contingent events to become a fully formed human, a fertilized egg needs a contingent event not to.
A sperm is a potential person the way a bullet is a potential murder weapon. A fertilized egg is a potential person the way a bullet is a potential murder weapon...while it's in mid-air heading towards someone who's just been shot at.
This is what I mean by pretending time doesn't exist: things like momentum and trajectory (metaphorically speaking, in this case) matter, because without them, living things are no different than anything else. There would be no such thing as "life" if you were to pause the universe, because there would be no difference between the animate and the inanimate. Their ability to potentially do things is what makes them animate. So any conception (get it!) of human life that pretends the universe is static is simply not describing reality. If a philosophy cannot make a distinction between the living and the inanimate, then it cannot be the basis for human rights, and therefore, it cannot be the basis for law.
Since even a mosquito has a tiny consciousness, but an embryo has none whatsoever, there's no rational reason to claim aborting an embryo is taking a life.
Yeah, you said this before, and I already explained (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=1362804#post1362804) the leap in logic this statement involves:
Do you seriously not see the part of this where you just skip over the argument? You say no brain = no consciousness, and that's fine, but at no point do you link up "no consciousness" to "aren't considered people." So your claim is not supported by "biological fact."
I don't think we've had a single argument where you didn't pretend your position was based in science, only to have rudimentary questioning reveal that you were actually making a philosophical judgment about a scientific premise. And that's the case here, again.
I honestly have no idea if you're trying to pull one over on people, or if you don't even realize you do it, but I've pointed it out a few times now, so I don't know what the excuse would be for continuing it.
You are not making scientific claims. You are making philosophical claims about scientific ones. "Brain required for consciousness" = scientific claim. "Things without consciousness are not alive" = philosophical claim. This isn't complicated, and you appear to have ample intelligence, so if you continue to make these leaps, willful blindness is pretty much the only explanation left.
Sir Toose
08-03-15, 11:36 AM
No, it's a fact that a brain is perquisite for a consciousness.
http://io9.com/scientists-accidentally-discover-the-brains-consciousne-1600230950
From your article:
"It's a discovery that could shed light on the very nature of consciousness itself."
Doesn't sound like fact!
"An exciting discovery, to be sure. But a word of caution; the woman was missing part of her hippocampus, which was removed to treat her epilepsy, so she doesn't possess a "normal" brain. Clearly, these results need to be reproduced in others before we get too carried away with the findings."
Sounds like experimentation, not fact.
"Anesthesia was a major medical breakthrough, allowing us to lose consciousness during surgery and other painful procedures. Trouble is, we're not entirely sure how it works. But now we're getting closer to solving its mystery — and with it, the mystery of consciousness itself."
Well, damn... that's what I said.
Legally and historically. People don't grant rights to trees for example because despite being "alive", they have no brain or consciousness.
Well, that's not exactly true either. The redwood, for example has been legally protected in California... which recognizes its right to live.
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/cacode/PEN/3/1/10/s384a
Since even a mosquito has a tiny consciousness, but an embryo has none whatsoever, there's no rational reason to claim aborting an embryo is taking a life.
How do you know what a mosquito experiences?
What's consciousness?
From your article:
"It's a discovery that could shed light on the very nature of consciousness itself."
Doesn't sound like fact!
While performing deep brain surgery on a woman with epilepsy, neuroscientists from George Washington University stimulated an area of her brain that unexpectedly — and temporarily — caused her to lose awareness. It's a discovery that could shed light on the very nature of consciousness itself.
Embryo's don't have brains. Consciousness is dependent on the brain.
Well, that's not exactly true either. The redwood, for example has been legally protected in California... which recognizes its right to live.
It's protected because it's endangered, not because it has a right to live on the basis of it's biological design.
Killing a dog cruelly for example is illegal regardless of whether or not the dog is endangered. Apples to oranges.
How do you know what a mosquito experiences?
What's consciousness?
Mosquitos have brains.
Out of curiosity do you believe abortion should be illegal once brain function starts?
Yeah, you said this before, and I already explained (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=1362804#post1362804) the leap in logic this statement involves:
No leap in logic here, since we're defining things simply by whether or not the consciousness exists to begin with, not by the individual levels of consciousness within members of the same species.
"Things without consciousness are not alive" = philosophical claim.
Correct, and it's the one which has precedent and is consistently applied; it's the reason for example that a tree doesn't have a right to "live" despite being "alive" in the basic biological sense.
Out of curiosity do you believe abortion should be illegal once brain function starts?
No, not except to save a life
No, not except to save a life
Did you think I said legal?
Did you think I said legal?
Yeah, my bad there
Well, at least your being consistent. I still find it odd that your major axe to grind seems to be with us crazy puritans, when abortion is legal long after brain function begins. Just a thought.
Sir Toose
08-03-15, 11:54 AM
Embryo's don't have brains. Consciousness is dependent on the brain.
"The fifth week of pregnancy, or the third week after conception, marks the beginning of the embryonic period. This is when the baby's brain, spinal cord, heart and other organs begin to form."
4th to 5th week of pregnancy the brain begins to develop. AKA the embryonic stage. (http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/pregnancy-week-by-week/in-depth/prenatal-care/art-20045302)
How do you know some form of consciousness hasn't also developed? If you do know it then you're ahead of every neuroscientist on the planet.
It's protected because it's endangered, not because it has a right to live on the basis of it's biological design.
Do you really want to split that hair? If it wasn't biologically 'designed' that way it wouldn't be a redwood and then it wouldn't need to be protected.
Mosquitos have brains.
I never disputed that. I only asked how you you know what consciousness means to a mosquito. Perhaps it has a brain to control rudimentary function but isn't 'conscious'.
"The fifth week of pregnancy, or the third week after conception, marks the beginning of the embryonic period. This is when the baby's brain, spinal cord, heart and other organs begin to form."
4th to 5th week of pregnancy the brain begins to develop. AKA the embryonic stage. (http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/pregnancy-week-by-week/in-depth/prenatal-care/art-20045302)
How do you know some form of consciousness hasn't also developed? If you do know it then you're ahead of every neuroscientist on the planet.
5 weeks into pregnancy isn't conception. The vast majority of abortions are early-term.
Do you really want to split that hair? If it wasn't biologically 'designed' it wouldn't be a redwood and then it wouldn't need to be protected.
If it wasn't endangered, the redwood wouldn't be protected.
If dandelions were endangered, they'd be protected.
I never disputed that. I only asked how you you know what consciousness means to a mosquito. Perhaps it has a brain to control rudimentary function but isn't 'conscious'.
That's actually a good point - I'd have to research the neurology of more animal species. Neverthless it requires a brain.
Well, at least your being consistent. I still find it odd that your major axe to grind seems to be with us crazy puritans, when abortion is legal long after brain function begins. Just a thought.
Basically because the Christian fundamentalists weren't in favor of procreation because they "appreciated life" in the modern Western sense.
They were in favor of it just for survivalistic reasons - since they followed literal interpretations of Old Testament values which were written by an Iron Age desert tribe where war, death, and capital punishment were common - it was simply about replenishing their low population (ex. soldiers killed in a war against another tribe) and, not about appreciation for life. And you can see by their draconian laws and acts of war that they did not value life much beyond its utility.
Modern day evangelicals/fundamentalists are just applying Iron Age values to the 21st century - the rhetoric that it's about appreciating life is just propaganda.
Sir Toose
08-03-15, 12:05 PM
5 weeks into pregnancy isn't conception. The vast majority of abortions are early-term.
?? You said embryos don't have brains... like this:
"Embryo's don't have brains. Consciousness is dependent on the brain."
I posted a link showing you that the embryonic stage is all about brain development. Who said anything about abortion?
If it wasn't endangered, the redwood wouldn't be protected.
If dandelions were endangered, they'd be protected.
Because they would be specifically called out by a specific legal action. Let's not forget your original statement RE: trees don't have legal protection. They do, in some cases.
No leap in logic here, since we're defining things simply by whether or not the consciousness exists to begin with
Er, no we aren't. And we have no reason to, because defining things this way would do nothing to support your initial claims about pro-lifers. It's a walked-back position in an argument that wouldn't exist if it were what was actually said from the get-go.
Correct
Cool, but this means you agree with the thing you just disagreed with in the previous quote. Specifically, that you can't say your claim is scientific (or the pro-life counterclaim unscientific), because both are philosophical statements about when to recognize human life, legally.
and it's the one which has precedent and is consistently applied
Two things you can say about the idea that life begins at conception, as well.
And I'm not sure it does have precedent in the way you're applying it, anyway: you can't legally destroy someone the moment they become brain dead, for example. They still have rights, and due process in various forms. Not the same rights, but not none, either.
?? You said embryos don't have brains... like this:
"Embryo's don't have brains. Consciousness is dependent on the brain."
I posted a link showing you that the embryonic stage is all about brain development. Who said anything about abortion?
The brain activity does not begin at conception.
Because they would be specifically called out by a specific legal action. Let's not forget your original statement RE: trees don't have legal protection. They do, in some cases.
They don't have protections because they are "alive", the protections are because they are endangered.
The Washngton Monument has laws protecting it, but because it's a historical monument - not because "buildings have a right to live".
Sir Toose
08-03-15, 12:14 PM
The brain activity does not begin at conception.
LOL! Okay dude. You want to keep moving the topic around. I'm not chasing you anymore.
Well, at least your being consistent. I still find it odd that your major axe to grind seems to be with us crazy puritans, when abortion is legal long after brain function begins. Just a thought.
^This.
90sAce is articulating a position that's way more pro-life than pro-choice. It's a position that's far more pro-life than current law, and far more pro-life than the overwhelming majority of Democratic politicians and pro-choice activists, most of whom would regard him as a pro-life extremist. Yet those massive differences are only dragged out on questioning, whereas the much smaller differences with the pro-life side are belabored and magnified. Presumably because that's the side with a lot of people he really doesn't like, even though his intellectual conclusions about life overlap far more with them on this particular issue.
^This.
90sAce is articulating a position that's way more pro-life than pro-choice. It's a position that's far more pro-life than current law, and far more pro-life than the overwhelming majority of Democratic politicians and pro-choice activists, most of whom would regard him as a pro-life extremist. Yet those massive differences are only dragged out on questioning, whereas the much smaller differences with the pro-life side are belabored and magnified. Presumably because that's the side with a lot of people he really doesn't like, even though his intellectual conclusions about life overlap far more with them on this particular issue.
Actually I've never met anyone calling themselves "pro-life" who didn't claim human life/rights began at conception.
I'm not sure I have, either, but that's neither here nor there. Someone who thinks abortions should be banned at the first possibility of brain activity is far more pro-life than current law, and far more pro-life than the Democratic party.
According to you, it's currently legal to extinguish lives that deserve legal protection. Call me crazy, but if this were something you believed in any real sense (rather than in the abstract, Internet-debate sense), I'd think it would garner a lot more of your umbrage than whatever discomfort you get from having some ideological overlap with those scary religious people who apparently want to take all your sexy funtimes and science magic away.
Basically because the Christian fundamentalists weren't in favor of procreation because they "appreciated life" in the modern Western sense.
They were in favor of it just for survivalistic reasons - since they followed literal interpretations of Old Testament values which were written by an Iron Age desert tribe where war, death, and capital punishment were common - it was simply about replenishing their low population (ex. soldiers killed in a war against another tribe) and, not about appreciation for life. And you can see by their draconian laws and acts of war that they did not value life much beyond its utility.
Modern day evangelicals/fundamentalists are just applying Iron Age values to the 21st century - the rhetoric that it's about appreciating life is just propaganda.
I know this will surprise you but you are not going to have to work too hard to convince me that a large percentage of Christians have formed their world view based on cultural indoctrination. I think it is very misguided however to not realize the same can be said for people from every world view. You don't seem to want to leave any room for things that are not observable. Well, I would recommend you start observing the results of moral behavior in our culture and you might find out those sand zealots weren't all bad.
Speaking of the observable. I would challenge anyone who is pro-choice to listen to their babies heart beat before they make a decision like that. If it doesn't bring you to tears and make you think their is a human life there, you might want to check your own heart beat.
Your a smart guy 90's Ace and you obviously do a lot of reading. You have built your world view upon that. Guess what many, many Christians have done the same thing. Science and religion don't have to be as at odds with each other as they are. We have made it that way.
Pussy Galore
08-05-15, 02:31 AM
I've not read it all maybe you answered that somewhere, sorry if I make you repeat yourself, buy I have a question for you Yoda.
You seem to say that human life should have a special value that other species don't have, on what is it based?
ash_is_the_gal
08-05-15, 10:18 AM
I would challenge anyone who is pro-choice to listen to their babies heart beat before they make a decision like that. If it doesn't bring you to tears and make you think their is a human life there, you might want to check your own heart beat.and i'm sure women who choose to abort do hear their baby's heartbeat beforehand, as that's usually the first thing you do when you go to the doctor's to affirm if you're pregnant or not. i'm pretty sure the majority of women out there getting abortions aren't doing it without considering the importance of such a decision. to suggest that they are cold or unfeeling about it is quite tasteless.
You seem to say that human life should have a special value that other species don't have, on what is it based?
Intelligence and potential, basically. But that's a wildly different topic. One could value animal life as much as human life and still be against abortion, and the inherent value of human life is a given to all involved in this discussion, so naturally it hasn't been necessary to establish it.
Should I take this reply as an invitation to pop into that thread you made awhile back about animal rights? :)
and i'm sure women who choose to abort do hear their baby's heartbeat beforehand, as that's usually the first thing you do when you go to the doctor's to affirm if you're pregnant or not. i'm pretty sure the majority of women out there getting abortions aren't doing it without considering the importance of such a decision. to suggest that they are cold or unfeeling about it is quite tasteless.
Probably, but still not as tasteless as...I bet you can fill in the blank.
Pussy Galore
08-05-15, 12:34 PM
Intelligence and potential, basically. But that's a wildly different topic. One could value animal life as much as human life and still be against abortion, and the inherent value of human life is a given to all involved in this discussion, so naturally it hasn't been necessary to establish it.
Should I take this reply as an invitation to pop into that thread you made awhile back about animal rights? :)
Sure, consider yourself invited :p
vBulletin® v3.8.0, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.