Kind of. This is one of those things that (at least here in the US) we are very inconsistant on. For instance, if I get pregnant by some guy I meet at a bar and sleep with, I can sue him for child support and he is obligated to provide it. Personally, I think this is wrong, but it is the way it works. I’m with you, I don’t want parents who don’t want to be parents to have responsibility for children.
Our society doesn’t take responsibility as a whole for living children. We prefer to place the responsibility on the parents. Adoption transfers these responsibilities to other parents, but you have to find willing takers (not a problem with healthy white babies currently, but it is a problem with severely disabled kids). But it still doesn’t let birthparents completely off the hook - adoptees are fighting (and winning) the battle to have adoption records open - which means that it is possible to have your bio child show up on your doorstep eighteen years later even if you don’t want this to happen. We will also take responsibility from the parents if they prove they can’t have it - but a lot of damage needs to be done before we (society) will take responsibility for someone’s child - and the system that takes responsibility is broken (in some cases - barely - in other cases - severely).
We are inconsistant about other things as well. We don’t force anyone to donate organs at death - despite there being a shortage and people dying for lack of organs. It seems to me that mandatory organ donation at death (assuming you were a good candidate) would be consistant with a pro-life stance.
Sure. the brain has sensory-input pathways that are responsible for making us aware of things that are happening external to us. It also happens to be the case that destroying or damaging these areas of the brain will cause us to not be aware of things external to us. So it seems to me that we’re dealing with a simply function of the physical brain. Unless you have some evidence that this is not the case. . . .
I beg to differ. You are using thoughts to observe more thoughts. There is no need to insert a separate entity that cannot be detected into the equation to explain things.
Bull. I discern right from wrong based on two things. The first is the concept of morality that has been ingrained in me by society. When you grow up being told that certain things are wrong, while others are right, that tends to stick.
The second is a rational approach to morality that I was able to adopt once my brain became developed enough for complex logical thought. This sometimes overrides my ingrained morality.
None of my moral system needs an undetectable consciousness to explain it.
We don’t understand gravity well enough to begin to say what it is an effect of, either. So far we know it’s related to mass, but we don’t know what causes mass.
However, we can still know that things with mass have gravity, and things without mass do not. Likewise, we know that people who are conscious have brain activity, and those who do not have brain activity are not conscious.
And that’s the problem. You are basing your opinion on what you want to believe, instead of what the evidence points to. As far as I’m concerned, reaching a conclusion because of a “gut feeling” is a completely flawed way of doing things. The only time it’s an appropriate decision-making method is when there is no evidence at all, and so all choices are equally likely.
There is zero reason whatsoever to imagine that consciousness exists in another dimension. The only reason to suspect that is if you have already decided what is true, and you are now attempting to make reality fit what you believe. That is poor reasoning.
It explains a phenomenon that we already observe. An undetectable consciousness does not.
I would go into greater detail, but I’m running a bit late. I’ll be back to respond in more depth later tonight.
Children always know when they’re being treated unjustly, even if they don’t have the words to express it. As toddlers, all they can do is cry, throw tantrums or cower before abusive parents.
Is it so surprising that they don’t do better than they know, considering how often adults act in a similar manner?
You tempted your parents, didn’t you? Obviously, what went around has come around.
You’re missing the point. The ability to receive sensory input is not consciousness. That is evident if you’ve every noticed yourself not listening to someone. You can hear them speaking, but you don’t know what they’re saying.
Not so. If you’re the kind of person who can’t look at something without being involved in whatever thoughts come to mind about it, this will be difficult to comprehend. Likely you would have understood it as a child, before attaching names to objects became a habit.
May I take this to mean if you’d grown up in Nazi Germany, you’d have been happy herding Jews into gas chambers?
How do you know what you were told was correct?
That capacity can be used just as easily to rationalize insanity as it can be to come to conclusions which are correct. How do you know these modifications of your “ingrained morality” are not the effect of the former?
I don’t know that this thread is the place for it, but if you think you know why you think this or that is wrong, you don’t. Run any principle by me that you believe in, and I’ll prove it.
Is it really possible that the distinction between a suspicion and a conclusion is lost on you?
At one time, there was zero reason whatever to imagine there was any such thing as gamma radiation.
They are both attempts to fill the gap between what we know and what is. I see no particular reason to value one over the other - except that if the concept of dark matter is bogus, no lives will be lost. If my suspcion is correct, millions already have been.
Yguy, what do you want me to say ? I don’t know how I can make it any clearer. A fetus is just as human as a toddler. You can’t make a mother, a father, or a stranger donate body parts to a toddler, even if it will die if you don’t. You can’t make any person donate a body part (e.g a uterus) to a fetus, even if it will die if you don’t. The choice to do so belongs to the owner of the body part.
Tell me why you want to give a fetus rights that a toddler doesn’t have ? Tell me why the rights of the person who owns a ‘wanted’ body part should be overridden when the person is under a certain age ? What magically happens after a baby is born that causes a mother to regain all the rights over her own body parts ? Seriously, a few days earlier, and she has zero control over allowing another human to use her body. A few days later, she regains control over her organs. The act of falling pregnant does not give the new human creation the right to anyone’s body parts, just as the act of giving birth does not. Again, why give a fetus more rights than a toddler has ?
What the hell do you mean, “what do I want you do say”?? I want you to answer the question. Is that so hard to comprehend??
Toddlers have the right to be an inconvenience to their mothers, and so do fetuses.
The mother’s right not to be pregnant was overridden by the parents of that fetus, not the fetus.
There is no such right. If I have a malignant tumor, and lack the funds for treatment, and no one wants to give it to me, I’m SOL. If I get treatment, it is not a right, but a gift.
No one here is saying that anyone is obligated to perform abortions for free. If a woman is pregnant, can’t pay for an abortion, and no one wants to treat her for free, she’s SOL too. But if she can pay for it, or find someone who will, then she has just as much right to have an abortion as you do to get that tumor removed.
That is called “Selective Attention” in psychology. The brain has the capacity to selectively ignore certain stimuli. If it did not, we would be overwhelmed by the sheer amount of information bombarding us.
Thoughts aren’t always in the form of words, though. I often have thoughts that are completely in images, or in sounds.
If I had been taught from an early age that Jews were evil and needed to be killed, and if my opinion were asked when I was a young child who was not capable of complex logical thought (i.e. before the stage of cognitive development which Jean Piaget referred to as Formal Operations), then yes, I would have been happy to herd Jews into gas chambers.
I don’t. In fact, when dealing with morality, there is often no such thing as “correct”.
I don’t. I would imagine that someone who was truly insane wouldn’t realize that they were insane.
However, since no one has ever accused me of being insane, I will assume that I am not for the time being.
Alright, I’ll bite. Causing someone undue pain is wrong. My basis for this is the Golden Rule. Basically, I have concluded that harming others will make other more inclined to harm me back in retribution. I do not want to be harmed. Therefore, I avoid harming others, and view it as “wrong”.
Further, I was raised to believe that harming others was wrong (but without any explanation of why that was the case), thus my ingrained moral system tells me that harming others is wrong.
Now, had I been raised to think that harming others was okay, and if I had no reason to fear retribution, then I have no doubt that I would view inflicting harm on others to be perfectly moral.
But you can’t claim something to be true based on the fact that it might become true in the future.
Now, it’s perfectly okay to have a suspicion that something could be true, even if it runs counter to what is currently understood. The problem arises when you attempt to base other decisions on the assumption that what you suspect is, in actuality true.
But one is based on observable evidence, and the other is based on your “suspicions” and “gut feelings”. That seems to be a very big difference to me.
And if my suspicion that bacteria are sentient, reincarnated humans is right, trillions of lives have already been lost, but I don’t see anyone rallying to ban Lysol or penicillin.
Like I said, having a suspicion is fine, but basing policy on something so flimsy as a suspicion is not a good way to make decisions.
Then you and she are SOL, unless you can treat yourselves. We have both agreed on that point at least twice already. The right to be free from pain (or pregnancy) generally doesn’t create an obligation for anyone else.
But here in the real world, there are women who can pay for abortions, and doctors who are willing to perform them. The question in the OP is whether a cleft palate is a “good enough reason” for an abortion, not whether doctors should be forced to abort fetuses with cleft palates.
And what does the selecting? Consciousness, that’s what.
And how is this significant?
Then why is it that there were people who were brought up in that environment who were NOT happy to do that? How do we explain the Solzhenitsyns and the Harry Wu’s of the world?
That is almost obscenely oxymoronic. That no one appears to know what may be morally correct in any given instance is hardly evidence that there is no correct answer. You might as well claim the Ptolemaic and Coperican models of the solar system could both be correct. If there is no right answer, morality is not an issue, because morality is about nothing BUT right or wrong.
I do. I know I’m not insane.
And you know the Golden Rule is correct because…?
So your view of right and wrong centers around the consequences of any particular action to you?
So how does the aphorism, “Sometimes you have to be cruel to be kind” fit into this?
You might think it was, but you would only maintain such a mindset at the price of internal conflict, which you would have to resolve either by admitting you’d been had, or by distracting yourself by some means so as to deaden the pain of conscience. Assuming you have a conscience, of course.
What have I claimed to be true that is not demonstrably true?
Assuming for the sake of argument that I’m doing that, is that somehow worse than basing it on what you are positively convinced is true but is in reality unsubstantiated?
My claim that science doesn’t understand consciousness well enough to pass judgment on its relationship to detectable neural activity is contradicted nowhere in the body of scientific knowledge. I haven’t based any of my assertions here on suspicion.
That, of course, is because there is zero reason to believe such a claim. There is plenty of reason to believe a fetus has consciousness before birth. Since we don’t know when that consciousness becomes human, it is reasonable to believe that point could come at any point after conception.
Incorrect. The right to be free from pain means that if you choose to treat your own pain, or hire a second party to treat it for you, then no third party can interfere. Likewise, the right to have control over your body means that if you choose to remove something from it, or hire a second party to remove it for you, then no third party can interfere.
If you have no such alternatives, you feel the pain regardless of that “right”. Therefore, that right is one granted by other people. What they may give, they may take away. Likewise with the “right” not to be pregnant.
The brain, that’s what. Seriously, why do you insist in this disconnect between the brain and consciousness? Doesn’t it seem obvious, from all the evidence available to us, that we are our brain? Thoughts, consciousness, feelings, all of these are caused by brain activity. . . . no, actually that’s not precise enough. They are brain activity.
You spoke of children being more aware of their consciousness (as opposed to their thoughts, which you claim are different) before they attach words to objects. It appeared that you were setting up a separation along the lines of “words = thoughts, non-words = consciousness”. Is that not what you meant? If not, then why would one be more inclined to notice their consciousness when they lack words?
Did you not see my condition that I would have answered in that manner before being of an age where I could apply complex logical thought to the situation?
You have managed to commit the logical fallacy of Equivocation. There is a difference between being factually right and being logically right. Morality may be about right and wrong, but that has nothing to do with being right where “right” = “factually correct”.
It would seem that you are of the belief that there is some sort of absolute, universal morality. From whence do you believe that this universal morality is derived?
How? An insane person would “know” that they weren’t insane, too. How do you know that you’re not an insane person who’s hallucinating that they’re sane?
It’s only “correct” in the sense that it gives me a framework to avoid inciting others to cause me pain. I don’t believe in any universal moral system, so to call the Golden rule correct (in the universal sense) is not something that I would do. In fact, I do not believe that any moral stance is correct (again, in the universal sense).
Partially. As I’ve mentioned before, I also have an ingrained morality that I absorbed from my exposure to a society with a common moral system during my formative years. This system of morals tends to operate at the “gut level” for lack of a better description.
I am of the opinion, however, that morality in general began as being purely selfish.
I never claimed that my moral system was not multifaceted. There are many possible actions and consequences to weigh against each other. I merely gave a simplistic description for the sake of brevity.
No. I claim that I would know that harming others was morally correct. Just look at people who grow up in abusive families. They think that relationships are supposed to be abusive, and there are many women who will leave a non-abusive partner because they think that a husband who doesn’t hit them doesn’t love them.
It would seem that I was correct. You obviously believe that morality is absolute, and that every human has some way of knowing what this absolute morality is. Would you care to elaborate on where you think this morality comes from, why it is correct, and how everyone is somehow supposed to know what it is?
You’ve been slippery enough to not come right out and say “I believe that consciousness exists separate from the brain”, but that’s obviously what you believe, and it is not demonstrably true. Of course, you’ll claim that you merely “suspect” it, and never claimed that it’s true.
However, I claim that, in order to use one concept to support another concept, the concept doing the supporting must be assumed to be true. For example, I might suspect that all plants are reincarnated humans. But as soon as I say “everyone should stop eating plants, because they might be reincarnated humans”, I have implicitly assumed that my suspicion is true in actuality.
My claim that science doesn’t understand gluxerks well enough to pass judgment on its relationship to detectable neural activity is contradicted nowhere in the body of scientific knowledge, either. That doesn’t mean that my claim is credible in any way.
You see, the problem with this is that science doesn’t use the same definition of “consciousness” as you do. Science doesn’t tend to deal with undetectable, extra-dimensional entities.
But I was never arguing that it isn’t conscious before birth. Have you not been paying attention? Have I not said, repeatedly, that fetuses show brain activity after the 20[sup]th[/sup] week? So repeatedly that you complained about it? Have I not said that I believe consciousness to be a direct result of brain activity?
You are the one claiming that you suspect that consciousness can occur without brain activity. This would require that consciousness be able to exist without brain activity, and there is zero reason to believe such a claim.
Consciousness can exist without a functioning brain.
There are absolute moral “rights” and “wrongs”.
People do not have the right to be free from pain.
Men support abortion rights in order to treat women like sex toys.
People should accept these and other postulates mainly based on your “gut feeling” and the fact that nothing can be proven with 100% certainity.
You are not insane.
Here’s what I have gathered the other point of view to be:
A pregnant woman is a person.
A person is a human being with consciousness.
Persons have rights, such as the right to live, right over their own body and the right to be free from pain.
A foetus pre-20th week does not have a consciousness.
Since it is not a person, it does not have the rights of a person.
Therefore a pregnant womans needs and desires superceede the foetus.
After the 20 weeks the foetus might have a consciousness and the issue becomes more complex. Most seem to weigh the (undoubtedly conscious) womans rights above the (possibly conscious) foetus.
I would ask of you to put forward exactly what it is you believe and what you base it on. So far you seem to:
Avoid questions
Answer questions with questions
Attack strawmen
Mix up the definitions (person, human, child, foetus)
Make rethorical questions based on false premises as a combination of the above.
Frankly it leaves me with the impression that there is only one side here that is trying to have an honest debate (not you), and I’m hoping you can rectify that.
