That should read:
“You are the one claiming that you suspect that consciousness causes brain activity. This would require that consciousness be able to exist without brain activity, and there is zero reason to believe such a claim.”
Then I suppose you view the Bill of Rights with the same disdain, right?
After all, you can’t exercise freedom of the press if you can’t afford a press. You can’t bear arms if no one will sell you a gun. You can’t have a speedy trial if there are no courtrooms. By your logic, those “rights” are merely gifts from other people, and they may be taken away.
I’m still waiting for a cite on that misogyny claim, BTW. You aren’t doing yourself any favors by pretending you never said it.
And many men are pro-life for misogynistic reasons, mainly because losing control of their reproductive rights is one way to keep women barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen and out of positions of power…
cite - pulled it out of my butt (though I know pro-choice feminists who firmly believe this).
Are you suggesting that no right is real if it is not absolute? If so, then in practice there aren’t any real rights. Within a given context, certain rights will subjugate other rights, both in law and in morality. There is no meaningful discussion of rights without acknowledging this notion. Otherwise, we all have “rights” that cannot be protected or exercised.
The right to be free from pain can be undeniably real without being an unlimited right. Just to be clear, I’m reacting to your phrase, “no third party can interfere.” Third parties interfere with rights all the time. There are virtually no absolute rights, certainly not from a practical perspective.
::raises hand::
Read the works of Randall Terry (of Operation Rescue fame) for one solid instance.
In general, it strikes me as odd that so many members of social contingent (the socially conservative right) would be such bleeding hearts with regards to fetal rights. Does this not seem counterintuitive? The same contingent is one that has not been vocally worried about deaths of homeless people or indigent people seeking medical treatment. In fact, just list the other victims of societal mistreatment on whose behalf they have noisily spoken, and see if you can get off the fingers of the first hand. Or even off the first finger.
For this reasion I asked how many right-to-life folks would be happy to pay the additional tax necessary to keep the fetus alive out of the womb if the technology to so do came into being (it will) while their attempt to make abortion illegal did not.
One key might be looking into support for keeping premature babies alive. Premature babies of poor uninsured people. How many right-to-life people are fervently engaged in the attempt to keep preemies from dying if heroic measures can keep them alive? How many support public funds going to these measures if the parents can’t afford it and their insurance doesn’t exist or won’t cover it?
**Wow. Paint with a broad brush much?
I heard you the first dozen times, OK?
BTW, I misspoke. Consciounsness doesn’t make the choice any more than my eyes choose what to look at. The soul does that.
Sure - just as obvious as it was centuries ago that the earth is flat.
If we can say positively that consciousness requires a funcitoning brain, we can also say positively that it ends at death. Since we cannot claim the second, neither can we credibly claim the first.
BTW, here is a an article from Lancet in which this may be found:
“Sabom22 mentions a young American
woman who had complications during brain surgery for
a cerebral aneurysm. The EEG of her cortex and
brainstem had become totally flat. After the operation,
which was eventually successful, this patient proved to
have had a very deep NDE, including an out-of-body
experience, with subsequently verified observations
during the period of the flat EEG.”
IOW, the patient evidently perceived something during the time when there was no detectable neural activity.
Ideed it is not.
It’s not that they lack words so much, it’s that words, or symbols in general, are the province of the intellect, in which adults tend to become lost. We think we understand something because we have attached a name to it. A child sees something and knows it doesn’t understand, but that there is something to be understood.
Again, “complex logical thought” is at least as likely to lead a person away from an obvious truth as towards it. How complex is the idea that Jews shouldn’t be killed just because they are Jews? Were you ever punished for anything unjustly? If you were, you knew it immediately, even if you didn’t understand how it happened. How much of a leap is it to realize that Jews are being punished unjustly?
I don’t see how that’s possible. If it’s wrong to be hypocritical, is it not a fact that it is wrong to be hypocritical?
From the Creator. However, it only manifests itself as morality in the presence of evil.
Same way you do. Any doubt you have is only theoretical. If you really doubted your sanity, you couldn’t function. Green traffic lights might really be red. Up might really be down. Murder might be a sacrament.
Why do you need a framework to do that?
If you are talking about some sort of codification of morality, I agree. So did Christ, even though He was a practicing Jew. That’s why He healed that man on the Sabbath.
There you go. That’s your source. That’s what tells you the Golden Rule is correct.
Yes, this is the familiar logical consequence of the evloutionist view. Likewise you will not be surprised that I find that view preposterous, at least as regards human beings…but I suppose we’ve flown off on enough tangents already.
That’s not knowing, it’s thinking. Children are easily intimidated into doubting what they know by mean-spirited parents, who were intimtaded by mean-spirited parents, who were…
Children crave attention from parents. If they can’t get love, abuse will suffice. At least then they can enjoy hating the parents and feeling like martyrs.
It comes from the Creator. If it weren’t correct, it wouldn’t be morality. We know what it is by observing our proclivity for selfishness.
And I didn’t, so I don’t know what you’re complaining about.
Then kindly tell me what I’ve asserted that needs the concept of consciousness existing apart from the brain for support.
No, you have assumed it may be true. Whether anyone acts on the basis of that assumption is determined by its credibility and the possible consequences of it being correct.
Credibility is in the eye of the beholder. Dunno what I can do about that.
Why is that a problem?
Too bad for science. 
Why did you cut the last sentence out of my original quote?
The BOR does not grant any rights. It is a proscription against government infringement of inherent rights. The right to publish anything or to own a weapon is like the right to life - you only have them in the negative sense others may not take them away without due cause. Otherwise government would be obligated to buy everybody a weapon.
As for trials and courtrooms, if there were no courtrooms, how could you be on trial in the first place? Again, that provision is essentially a proscription against government dragging out justice, since it is the government which drags you into court.
Haven’t got one. It’s my opinion…and until I’m given evidence to the contrary, I’m sticking with it.
I said many, not all.
Where the hell do you get that idea? I have no idea what people should accept. Not my department. However, if I see a falsehood being propagated as truth, I’m inclined to point it out.
Why?
Really? From my perspective, it is mostly my opponents who do that.
And those actions are problemmatic why, exactly?
I don’t know what you mean. I don’t see that your side has any clear idea of what the relevant distinctions are.
I think that’s an illusion based on the fact that I question the basis of the definitions which the pro-abortion crowd finds convenient.
Again, I see exactly the opposite.
Sooo, let me make sure I’m following here. Yguy, you’re deriding everyone else’s claims because they don’t have conclusive scientific proof, but you’re not willing to offer any proof whatsoever of your claims about consciousness or the motives of pro-choice men. Why, exactly, are we supposed to give your claims any credence?
As for the misogyny thing, all the men I’ve known who were pro-choice were interested in what was best for the woman. Many of them weren’t even sexually active, or were gay, so that kind of throws out the whole sex toy theory, at least in their cases.
Oh, and by your standards of logic, I’m perfectly justified in saying that men who oppose abortion rights do so primarily to punish women who have sex for being such dirty sluts. After all, that’s my opinion, and you have only anecdotal evidence to contradict me. Silly, isn’t it?
Exactly which claims do you have in mind here?
As I said, that’s your department. If you don’t see a reason to, than don’t.
And what is it about the pro-choice position that is so pro-woman? The fact that it encourages men to be sexually irresponsible? Why should a man care what happens to a woman after he gets his rocks off when he can so easily manipulate her into having an abortion?
Then I guess it doesn’t in the remaining cases.
Don’t see why. You’re perfectly justified in saying any damn thing you please. If I find it credible, I’ll believe it - and if not, I won’t.
This post was longer than I though. I will try to be more brief in future replys.
I claim both. My claim is at least as credible as yours. In fact, it is more credible, as it is perfectly in line with what is currently known about the human brain.
Now, you can keep saying things like “Early man thought that the earth was flat”, but that is beside the point. Anyone can claim anything they want
Anecdotal evidence isn’t. Besides which, I’d like to see some solid facts about that case. What observations did the woman make that were verified? Was she presented with information prior to going flatline that would allow her to predict certain things without actually experiencing them? How likely is it that an oxygen-deprived brain would work those things into a hallucination?
How can you separate observation during a time of no neural activity from a hallucination during a time with neural activity that is later remembered? I can have a dream when I sleep, and, upon waking, I have no clue as to when I actually had the dream.
If it’s an obvious truth, then no, it’s not.
It all depends on what type of prejudices that one has been taught. I’m sure some people truly believed that killing Jews was a just course of action.
Allow me to clarify. You said “If there is no right answer, morality is not an issue, because morality is about nothing BUT right or wrong.”
The “right” in the phrase “right answer” is not the same “right” as in the phrase “morally right”. I can better demonstrate the difference by applying the synonym of “correct” to the first and “just” to the second.
Now we’re getting somewhere. It would appear that the whole “a fetus is conscious” approach is a red herring, and that you are actually basing your beliefs on abortion on your religious beliefs. Is that more of less accurate?
Because there is no absolute moral system that can make the decision for me.
Not so. My “gut feeling” often contradicts the Golden Rule; In effect, telling me that it is not correct.
Probably so. It’s becoming more clear to me that the real difference in our opinions stems from differences in religious beliefs rather than a difference of what causes consciousness.
The same can be said of almost anything. For instance, you don’t know that consciousness causes brain activity; you merely think it.
And once again we reach the crux of the matter. I posit that no Creator exists, and thus morality cannot stem from a non-existent Creator.
And even with the presence of a Creator, we are left with a sort of meta-moral dilemma: From whence does the Creator derive It’s morality?
I’m complaining because, even though you obviously believe that, for instance, consciousness causes brain activity, you refuse to actually come out and say it. Instead you “suspect” or say that “we don’t know for certain, so it could be true”. To me, this seems to be a very dishonest debating tactic. Just say what you think is true, and what you don’t, and we’ll debate about it.
Perhaps I’ve misunderstood your position. Could you answer this question for me? Do you believe early term abortions (say, within the first couple of months) to be morally acceptable? What about the “morning after” pill?
Because you stated that science doesn’t understand consciousness well enough to pass judgment on it. However, you were obviously using your own pet definition of consciousness rather than a definition that might be accepted well enough by science for it to actually address.
Because I saw no need to address it, and if I’m not addressing it, there is no need to quote it. If you feel that your quote was somehow misrepresented, I’ll be happy to reply to the whole thing. In fact, here’s what I removed:
You are putting the cart before the horse. You are assuming that consciousness exists beforehand, and then becomes human. All evidence points to the human existing first, and giving rise to consciousness as brain activity develops.
Certainly not. yguy is the one suggesting that certain rights aren’t real.
I agree. The right to free speech/press is limited by obscenity law, libel law, copyright law, etc., in addition to the simple facts that you need an audience for free speech to be meaningful, and you need a press in order to exercise the freedom thereof.
I think we’re making the same point here: a right can exist and be “real” even if there are limits on it, or if it can only be exercised in a certain context.
Since you understand “negative” rights so well, I have to wonder why you were putting up such a fight. The rights to be free of pain and pregnancy are similar - they exist only in the sense that no one else may take them away. No one is obligated to treat your pain or pregnancy, only to let you treat it, either by yourself or with a willing partner’s help.
Seems like AHunter3 has the stronger argument, then.
Pro-life misogynists: 1
Pro-choice misogynists: none
What claim of mine are you referring to?
Sure it is, unless it’s fraudulent. All it takes is one person experiencing consciousness without any neural activity to blow your claim to smithereens.
I don’t know, but that wouldn’t be enough to discount it in and of itself, although it would give ammunition to anyone determined to do so.
No clue? You know you had it the previous night, rather than a year ago, don’t you?
Please. I see it happen on boards all the time. Look at Goo’s refusal to answer my question.
Why would a child believe murdering Jews is good?
And was their “true belief” made of the same stuff as your belief that there is no consciousness without a brain?
I don’t see the difference.
Not even close. No one has yet challenged my cite about prenatal memories, thus tacitly admitting that it is highly likely that fetuses are conscious after 6 months. Therefore, they may be conscious before that.
For the life of me I can’t see how that makes any sense. It sounds like you’re saying you need a framework because a framework can’t make the decision for you.
Care to give an example?
How many times are you going to keep repeating this lie? I never said I KNEW it.
He doesn’t need any morality. Adam wouldn’t have needed it either, had he not sinned.
Then you put yourself at a serious disadvantage. I meant PRECISELY what I said.
What the hell do you think I’ve been doing the whole time?
I don’t believe in deliberate killing of the human conceptus, because doubt remains as to whether it is a human being.
Sue me.
I’m not assuming any such thing. Why the devil can’t you get that through your skull?
Indeed, a woman has a right not to be pregnant in the same sense that I have the right to own a gun - both she and I may excercise that right if those who aid us in doing so do it of their own free will, and if we don’t abuse it by killing anyone unjustly. My right to bear arms does not trump the right to life of owner of the gun store I kill to get that gun; neither does the right not to be pregnant trump the right to life of an unborn human being.
First point: “Killing anyone unjustly” is pretty vague when we’re talking about fetuses.
Every time you leave the house or drive a car, you’re killing bacteria and insects. Is that “killing anyone unjustly”? I would say no. Hopefully we can agree that you may still exercise your right to buy a gun if it means stepping on a bug on the way into the store, but not if it means killing an 18 year old person.
Then it becomes a question of where to draw the line. You draw it on one side of the fetus, we draw it on the other.
Second point: Some rights are more important than others. I’m willing to tolerate a lot more “collateral damage” to preserve the right to control one’s own body than to preserve the right to carry a gun.
Guess I can’t complain too much when my opponents demonstrate the essential vacuity of their position by drawing such silly comparisons, as if anyone with half a brain can’t see a qualitative difference between human and animal life.
Quite right: everyone with half a brain can see a qualitive difference between foetal and human life.
Except not, and some smart people truly do believe that animal life is worth the same as human life.
Please avoid ad hominems here. You seem to have actual cogent points, and those are such a rarity in abortion threads. Use them instead.
These posts are getting rather lengthy, so I am going to attempt to stick to the salient points in this reply. If I miss something that you would like me to address, let me know and I’ll do so.
One such verified instance, yes, but there are too many factors involve for one data point to really mean anything. That one instance could be explained as a coincidence, where the person dreamed (or hallucinated) that they witnessed something before ceasing brain activity (or after regaining it), and that something just happened to occur while they were flatlined. Without a lot more data points – and preferably a controlled test – then it’s just an anecdote that can have multiple explanations.
If it is an isolated incident that has not been tested or reproduced, then yes, having an alternate explanation that fits with what is currently known is enough to discount it (for the time being). At the very most, the incident could be considered for closer testing, to verify the phenomenon.
Because they were taught by their parents that Jews are the spawn of Satan, and that God wants them to be murdered? That’s one way to do it.
My point being that a lot of what you consider to be intrinsic morals, I consider to have been shaped by society during one’s formative years. People can believe that all kinds of things are moral, and those same people, when raised under different circumstances, can believe that the same things are immoral.
That does not necessarily follow, but I guess that it depends on your view of what consciousness is. My view is that it is caused by brain activity, and thus cannot exist prior to said brain activity, while your view is that it causes brain activity.
It seems that we will not agree on this point.
I’m saying that I need a framework because there is nothing else that can make the decisions for me. Thus I have to construct my own decision-making framework.
No problem. Because of the views of the society in which I was raised, I am wired to find incest disturbing and disgusting. However, I realize that most cases of incest would not result to injury of either party, and I know that I wouldn’t want a third party telling me who I could and couldn’t have sexual relations with, so the Golden Rule says that I should not attempt to interfere with someone who is in an incestuous relationship, no matter how “wrong” my “gut feeling” tells me it is.
Now, before you respond, realize that incest is a can of worms that would probably best be left unopened in this thread, and my explanation for my intellectual tolerance of it is the short version. There are actually many other factors to consider than what I listed, but I just wanted to give a quick example, not start another debate.
Then why is the morality that the Creator dictates to us “correct”? What makes it any more moral that our own, self-derived morality?
Not all people doubt to the same extent, though. In that case, whose doubt takes precedent? What if someone suspects that sperm and egg cells contain the seeds of consciousness? Since we can’t prove that sperm and eggs aren’t conscious, should we ban the use of contraceptives?
My point is that one has to weigh doubts against what we know reasonably well to be true. Otherwise, the most dramatic of the doubts becomes the most important, and the one that must be acted on.
Just pointing out the obvious here, but this sort of thing doesn’t lend itself to control tests, unless a researcher is prepared to take ethical risks most of us consider unthinkable.
Why would they believe what they are taught? Don’t they have choice not to believe it?
I was brought up in a non-Christian household, with a casual contempt for Christianity. Didn’t lay eyes on a Bible till I was eighteen. Go figure.
BTW, do not take that to mean I am now a Christian. I’m not.
They may believe it with their brain, but if there is anything left of them, they don’t believe it with their soul.
Your framework makes decisions for you? How do you know the framework is correct?
I’m gonna take a wild guess and say you see nothing wrong with homosexuality either. This is an example of your power of complex logical thought taking you away from the obvious truth, IMO. You sympathize with people’s dark, selfish side, and in your mind that is virtuous. While that may be in technical agreement with the Golden Rule, it violates its spirit.
Because He is correct.
You might as well ask why the designer of a car knows more about its maintenance than the person who buys it. If the car malfunctions, even the most obsessive do-it-yourselfer will go get the manual rather than try to back-engineer it, or develop theories about how it should be maintained.
Ideally, the one whose doubt is most reasonable. Practically, the one with the most political clout.
Again, your power to rationalize takes you away from the obvious truth: neither a sperm nor an egg can ever grow into adult humans by themselves. You might as well ask a farmer how he knows that two different seeds which are similar in appearance are different. He knows by experience that they will grow into different vegetables, which is the essential difference, not what the seeds look like. The seeds have within them all the information necessary to produce a carrot, onion or whatever. Of itself, a sperm has only the capacity to seek an egg, an egg only the capacity to allow itself to be fertilized.
That’s what I’m doing.