Abortion and Sentience

[Otherright]

My point was the brain is active even during sleep. REM sleep remember? I don't see how self-awareness would be a problem. Fetuses are essentially in a state of "sedation" until they are born.

If they are in a state of sedation, then they have absolutely no awareness or consciousness of any type.

Sedation and sleep are two fundamentally different things neurologically.

 

[Otherright]

Here is a good question tell me how does a zygote have the same rights as a dog? A zygote has no brain, no form completely unaware of anything. The only thing we have is potential. It is potentially something! But without sentience or an ability to be self-aware. It is essentially parasitic in its organic stage. I do not see how a zygote has or should have right.

Again with the fallacy. According to your premise, you are making the argument that all we have is potential. At a state of potentiality, we lose rights. Again, is it OK to kill a sleeping person, or better yet, a person that is anesthetized, as they literally have no self-awareness while in that state. Especially, since in another post you claim that babies are simply in a state of sedation.

Some parasites are self-aware and function so.

Look at the paramecium for example. Absolutely no neurons. Yet it has the ability to learn. What is its level of self-awareness? Does it not meet your general criteria for life, and is therefore disposable at the whims of others?

 

[Pegg]

Pegg have you looked at the link I posted? There is a quote that says the fetus is "in an unconscious [sedate like] state."

being in a sedated sleep-like state occurs due to hormones and chemicals being fed via the umbilical cord

so its not in an 'unconscious state'...its in a 'sleep' state. Using electroencephalography, researchers have seen the two sleep states which they name as Active Sleep and Quiet Sleep. Different behaviors are observed in both these states. In Active sleep fetus's breath, swallow, lick and move their eyes. They have said that the two stages corresponds to rapid-eye-movement and slow-wave sleep common to all mammals.

Just out of curiosity, at what age do you believe a fetus is a living being?

 

[Koldo]

But I would say assumed. And also argued. The initial proposition in an argument may be that which omits the other words, but I think many pro-lifers wouldn't say "all life begins with conception." Instead, individual human child's life (all) begin with conception.

And what have i said?

 

[Koldo]

Yeah but that is normally flawed since gestation isn't guranteed. Also I pose the question about living sperm cells and eggs cells that are living

But what does the gestation have to do with what i have said?

 

[Koldo]

being self aware is no indication either because a new born baby is not self aware for at least the first year of its life.

Citation needed.

Its usually around the 12th month of life that it begins to recognize itself in a mirror...until then, it thinks its looking at another baby.

So what?

 

[Koldo]

Personhood is that which is initiated at moment of conception.

Personhood is not a well defined term.
The above is strictly your opinion.

Don't we all assume that this fetus thing, that was conceived, holds enormously high likelihood to become that which will have higher brain functions, similar to human child? If yes, and if not willing to buy into Pro-Life position, on principle alone, would we / are we comfortable with notion of killing that which is visibly conceived and known to have high likelihood of relatively fast becoming human (child)?

Yes, i am.

 

[Acim]

Personhood is not a well defined term.
The above is strictly your opinion.

Well then let's get into a 18 page back-and-forth about "opinion" because I am calling it somewhere between (and including) belief and knowledge. My computer dictionary defines personhood as:

the quality or condition of being an individual person.

And my previous assertion was less attempt at definition and more attempt at explaining when that condition of being an individual begins.

Yes, i am.

And put into context of what you are asserting, it would read as:

"I am comfortable with notion of killing that which is visibly conceived and known to have high likelihood of relatively fast becoming human (child). That which (questionably) has personhood."

Other than debates on hypotheticals, I don't judge you. As long as that works for you, so be it. I could ask a serial killer who may happen to participate on an online forum that I do a similar question, and they could, without mincing words, pronounce, "I am comfortable with notion of killing that which is visibly known to be a adolescent human being. I do this because for me, personhood is not well defined, and because I think choice (that I make) are paramount to my existence."

And here in debate area of a forum, I think I might show up somewhat to very judgmental, but away from this 'reality,' it would be visibly different, for me. I'm sure the arguments and retorts would cross my mind, but not be seen as paramount to my existence. Mostly because I realized long ago that I share a planet with people who are quite comfortable killing other beings. Me, I literally have trouble / lack of comfort killing a bug / mosquito that is in my presence. I've done it before, it makes me uncomfortable each time I have done it. I've been around 'friends' who have seemingly no problem with it, and who pose statements along lines of "it was either that mosquito or me." LOL, but it is the logic at work.

Anyway, was just thinking of another way of understanding this issue. Doesn't everyone reading this see pedophilia as wrong? No questions to be asked, and just the concept of it is wrong, wrong, wrong? And isn't the common reason given for why that is wrong is because the child has no capacity to give consent? Well, wouldn't that apply to abortion? The principle of "no capacity to give consent, therefore it is hands off?" I reckon anti-lifers will find a way to get around this conundrum, but is food for thought, especially next time you wanna deem that pedophile as absolutely, morally, wrong.

 

[Acim]

Actually, that really is when an individual human life begins. Now, at what point this individual becomes a person is another matter entirely.

Is this what you were yapping about with "but what about what I said?"

If yes, I'll go with "strictly your opinion" that "point that individual becomes a person is another matter entirely."

Because arguably, it is at same time of conception. And is the argument I feel prepared to have right now, right here in this thread. My opinion / knowledge / facts / beliefs slated against your opinion / knowledge / facts / beliefs.

To be clear, I have said it is initiated at conception and you so far haven't stated a position, when does personhood begin, or when does individual become a person. If you care to clarify that before debate, it might help, but if you wish to take the non-stance and leave all burden of proof on me, we can play that game as well.

Let me know if you are willing to participate in said debate.

 

[Acim]

To be clear with anyone reading this. I am open to the debate I called forth, but my primary position in this, and I think always has been, is the one stated in previous post. The one where "choice to kill or destroy" is how I squarely understand the debate. The one about personhood is (or can be) fascinating and juicy in the way debates work. But my experience is, opinions don't get changed in that area of discussion. It is also where the debate on abortion is "hung up."

So, I admit that I am reluctant to do that debate, but not because I don't think I can "win," but much more because, I don't see how either one arguing my position or one arguing against that position can lose. It is a "win-win" argument where as I said, opinions / beliefs / knowledge of personhood just doesn't change. Due to bias. Even including science (as) philosophy.

Whereas the other debate about "choice to kill" does have winner and loser. Perhaps not in debates, but in way I think we all understand, especially if we talk about 2 individuals who all agree are "persons." There we can understand "winner" and "loser" that is occurring, and so from pro-life position on abortion, it is abundantly clear that there is a 'loser' in the discussion stemming from the justification that is a "choice to destroy." But since some of us in the pro-life position are spiritual and have core conviction of "let God (or Universe, or whatever) be the Judge for Life, as I know it," then really, who am I, or anyone here to judge winners and losers?

 

[Koldo]

Well then let's get into a 18 page back-and-forth about "opinion" because I am calling it somewhere between (and including) belief and knowledge. My computer dictionary defines personhood as:

the quality or condition of being an individual person.

And my previous assertion was less attempt at definition and more attempt at explaining when that condition of being an individual begins.

Yes, that much is obvious.
I meant the specific part called 'person'.

 

[Acim]

My dictionary defines person as:

a human being regarded as an individual

Here is where you say, but what is human being?

And then I define that. And you question next part of that term. And I define that part. And yadda yadda yadda 12 pages later, we are arguing why "there is no way you can see a solar eclipse from Jupiter, but I hardly think that matters."

 

[Koldo]

Is this what you were yapping about with "but what about what I said?"

No, that is not it.

To be clear, I have said it is initiated at conception and you so far haven't stated a position, when does personhood begin, or when does individual become a person. If you care to clarify that before debate, it might help, but if you wish to take the non-stance and leave all burden of proof on me, we can play that game as well.

Let me know if you are willing to participate in said debate.

I don't abide by any particular definition of 'person'.

 

[Koldo]

My dictionary defines person as:

a human being regarded as an individual

That is one possible definition.
There are many others as valid.

Here is where you say, but what is human being?

Nope.

 

[Koldo]

So, you are arguing that life begins before conception simply because a sperm and an egg are living things. This is a fallacy called denying the antecedent. (Its not a straw man Sunstone because it isn't a misrepresentation of the position).

A fallacy? I don't see any.
Could you present his argument in the following form so i can understand what you are talking about?

'If P, then Q.
Not P.
Therefore, not Q.'

 

[Acim]

I don't abide by any particular definition of 'person'.

Hence what makes killing, relatively easy.

Yes?

 

[Hypersonic]

If they are in a state of sedation, then they have absolutely no awareness or consciousness of any type.

Sedation and sleep are two fundamentally different things neurologically.

I am well.aware of that you mentioned sleep I didn't. We were doing I guess what you guys call side discusssion. I believe I was under the impression you said the brain was inactive during sleep. I said that its not entirely inactive, hence REM

 

[Hypersonic]

Again with the fallacy. According to your premise, you are making the argument that all we have is potential. At a state of potentiality, we lose rights. Again, is it OK to kill a sleeping person, or better yet, a person that is anesthetized, as they literally have no self-awareness while in that state. Especially, since in another post you claim that babies are simply in a state of sedation.

Some parasites are self-aware and function so.

Look at the paramecium for example. Absolutely no neurons. Yet it has the ability to learn. What is its level of self-awareness? Does it not meet your general criteria for life, and is therefore disposable at the whims of others?

My position of sedation was going off from what another scientist said which clear made sense. A zygote is a potential human but it isn't human. Its potentiality is not guranteed therefore, we can't gurantee rights to something that isn't guranteed to live through gestation. Even though its parasitic, your example of parasites being self-aware is not comparable here since, self-awareness is non-existent in a zygote.

But you failed to answer my question. Does a zygote have the same rights as a dog?

 

[Hypersonic]

But what does the gestation have to do with what i have said?

Perhaps you may want to repeat what you said I tried to back track but I am confused.

 

[Hypersonic]

being in a sedated sleep-like state occurs due to hormones and chemicals being fed via the umbilical cord

so its not in an 'unconscious state'...its in a 'sleep' state. Using electroencephalography, researchers have seen the two sleep states which they name as Active Sleep and Quiet Sleep. Different behaviors are observed in both these states. In Active sleep fetus's breath, swallow, lick and move their eyes. They have said that the two stages corresponds to rapid-eye-movement and slow-wave sleep common to all mammals.

Just out of curiosity, at what age do you believe a fetus is a living being?

Please cite some references please as I have done so.

As far as answering your question mine wasn't answered:

Does a zygote have the same rights as a dog?