Bush & Kerry, are either one right for America?

Originally posted by bbarr
No, a man who is drugged still has the capacity for consciousness. Once the drugs wear off, he will again be able to excercise that capacity.

a fetus in its primary condition also has the capacity for conciousness, its the same thing as a sleeping man he just has yet to wake up.

Originally posted by LordOfTheChessboard
a fetus in its primary condition also has the capacity for conciousness, its the same thing as a sleeping man he just has yet to wake up.

Not in the early stages of pregnancy. In the early stages of pregnancy, the causal structures necessary for supporting the capacity for consciousness have not developed. These structures don't develop, and hence the capacity doesn't exist, until the second trimester. At most, you can claim that during the first trimester the fetus has the potential to develop such a capacity. But, again, you've given no reason for thinking that having the potential to develop consciousness is sufficient for rights possession by a living entity. As I objected earlier, individual eggs and sperm also have the potential to develop consciousness, subject to the right external conditions. So, unless you are prepared to grant rights to eggs and sperm, you ought to revise your claim.

Originally posted by ivanhoe

I assume he is some two bit tv lawyer .... 😀

I hope this remark doesn't wake up his clones .... 😉

Don't talk that way about Matlock. He's twice the lawyer you'll ever be! 😠

Originally posted by bbarr
Not in the early stages of pregnancy. In the early stages of pregnancy, the causal structures necessary for supporting the capacity for consciousness have not developed. These structures don't develop, and hence the capacity doesn't exist, until the second trimester. At most, you can claim that during the first trimester the fetus has the potential to dev ...[text shortened]... So, unless you are prepared to grant rights to eggs and sperm, you ought to revise your claim.

who cares when the fetus developes conciousness its a fact that it WILL become concious just like a sleeping man who is temporarily uncouncious.

Its alive its human its concious in the same way we are so we shoud not kill it.

Originally posted by bbarr
That darn logic! Don't worry, Ivanhoe, I don't expect you to make sense of it. 😀

Cheers!

No bbarr, I'm not criticising formal logic ... I'm criticising the way you make use of that logic. Leading the witness is one of your ways. Making use of the ambiguity of words and terms is one of your other specialities to get the people where you want them to be: in the corner of your personal version of neo-Kantian personhood theories.

..... by the way I'm surprised that you allready take refuge in the last trick at your disposal: Calling me stupid, ignorant and not knowing what I'm talking about. That is usually a very strong argument in the end of the debate in the direction of your admirers who really don't know what you're talking about. You usually use that trick in a last and desperate attempt in intimidating your victim into surrendering ..... 😛

.... it however shows us one thing: you really believe your own pseudo philosophy based on a selfserving interpretation of scientific facts.

.... but we have not arrived at that part yet ... 😛

Cheers to you too !

Originally posted by bbarr
Don't talk that way about Matlock. He's twice the lawyer you'll ever be! 😠

Oops, ... is he the Secretary of Justice in Nader's shadow administration ? 😛

Originally posted by LordOfTheChessboard
who cares when the fetus developes conciousness its a fact that it WILL become concious just like a sleeping man who is temporarily uncouncious.

Its alive its human its concious in the same way we are so we shoud not kill it.

I think what bbarr is trying to say is sperm and eggs have the potential to become concious too, which means you have to stand up for their "rights" as well as the fetus. You would even have to make having a period illegal. And birth control too. 😕

Originally posted by LordOfTheChessboard
who cares when the fetus developes conciousness its a fact that it WILL become concious just like a sleeping man who is temporarily uncouncious.

Its alive its human its concious in the same way we are so we shoud not kill it.

Actually, if the fetus is aborted, it WILL NOT become conscious. Early in the pregnancy, the fetus doesn't even have the capacity for consciousness, unlike the sleeping man.

So, you're are either claiming that consciousness is necessary for the possession of rights, or you are not. If you are, then you are committed to early abortions being permissible. If you are not, then you need some other reason for granting rights to first trimester fetuses. If you claim that the potential to develop consciousness is sufficient for the possession of rights, then you are committed to individual eggs and sperm having rights.

Originally posted by ivanhoe

No bbarr, I'm not criticising formal logic ... I'm criticising the way you make use of that logic. Leading the witness is one of your ways. Making use of the ambiguity of words and terms is one of your other specialities to get the people where you want them to be: in the corner of your personal version of neo-Kantian personhood theories.

..... by ...[text shortened]... tific facts.

.... but we have not arrived at that part yet ... 😛

Cheers to you too !

I'm not claiming you are stupid, I'm claiming that you can't make sense of formal arguments. It's an acquired skill, Ivanhoe, don't despair. 😀

Cheers!

Originally posted by bbarr
Actually, if the fetus is aborted, it WILL NOT become conscious. Early in the pregnancy, the fetus doesn't even have the capacity for consciousness, unlike the sleeping man.

So, you're are either claiming that consciousness is necessary for the possession of rights, or you are not. If you are, then you are committed to early abortions being permissibl ...[text shortened]... or the possession of rights, then you are committed to individual eggs and sperm having rights.

Hi Bennet.

I really do admire your work and logic more lately.

I wonder why?

How you doing, other than the usual?

Did you enjoy the summer Class(s)? Woe... Wait. I forgot. You are always the optomist! By the way... I still think that comes from being able to pose questions in lieu of fretting over answers.

Anyway... You and yours well and happy i hope?

Originally posted by Remora91
I think what bbarr is trying to say is sperm and eggs have the potential to become concious too, which means you have to stand up for their "rights" as well as the fetus. You would even have to make having a period illegal. And birth control too. 😕

Indeed. Well said, Remora.

See, Ivanhoe, that wasn't so hard. You can follow along too, if you put your mind to it.

I have faith in you! 😉

Cheers!

Originally posted by bbarr
Actually, if the fetus is aborted, it WILL NOT become conscious. Early in the pregnancy, the fetus doesn't even have the capacity for consciousness, unlike the sleeping man.

So, you're are either claiming that consciousness is necessa ...[text shortened]... hen you are committed to individual eggs and sperm having rights.

No bbarr, an individual egg or an individual sperm cannot develop consciousness, only after they've melted together and formed a new, different and unique entity, a new human being.

.... 😛


Edit: Apparently it isn't that easy after all, otherwise you would be able to understand these most simple things, Bbarr.

.... by the way, maybe you should explain to Remora that the unborn child is not a part of the woman's body ...... but hey who cares, after all it isn't about sound reasoning, it is about the acceptance of the right to kill unborn children ... right Bbarr ... we are all politicians ... some are disguised as philosophers, some aren't .....

Originally posted by ivanhoe
No bbarr, an individual egg or an individual sperm cannot develop consciousness, only after they've melted together and formed a new, different and unique entity, a new human being.

it is about the acceptance of the right to kill unborn children

So according to you, women who have abortions are "killing unborn children". People who kill children are murderers. Murderers are punished by long prison terms or life in prison. Therefore, logically, you must support the imposition of such punishments on women who have abortions.

Would that be a fair statement of your viewpoint, Ivanhoe?

Originally posted by no1marauder
So according to you, women who have abortions are "killing unborn children". People who kill children are murderers. Murderers are punished by long prison terms or life in prison. Therefore, logically, you must support the impo ...[text shortened]... Would that be a fair statement of your viewpoint, Ivanhoe?

A fair "punishment" would be to have to pay for the killing out of their own pocket. No government funds.

Does that sound fair? It does to me. But ... what the hell. I'm just a redneck. Never had to apply for government money to kill a kid. Silly me. I am really.... "not with it" I guess. If I need a killing... I have the guts to do it myself. No wonderful spotless government supplied doctors and gowns.

<snark> What a bunch of killers. They lie there and let the "grand puba of all knowledge"... ie... a turd who can't remember the names of pills in relation to symptoms... (aka the abortion specialist) to kill on demand.

Mental midgets. To equate a silly right to a human being. That is the same thinking as pradtf endulges.

"Choose"

A simple word. Does life begin? Or not? Choose.

Does a life grow? Or not? Choose?

Does that life... at the very beginning... "conception"... have the ability of "being"? Choose.

What is the explanation for killing these "potential" beings? Convenience? Safety of the Mother? Money?

OK.

What is morality?

<edit> as an aside to lefties... Choose... at the moment when we have to decide if Saddam has em' or doesn't have em. Choose. I dare you. It might give you an idea of "binary determinism". You have to choose. Choice. At some point. Choose.

If you are wrong... you are not a "liar". You just chose wrong. See Bob Woodward. He sat in on the deliberations for a year.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
.... by the way, maybe you should explain to Remora that the unborn child is not a part of the woman's body ...... but hey who cares, after all it isn't about sound reasoning, it is about the acceptance of the right to kill unborn children ... right Bbarr ... we are all politicians ... some are disguised as philosophers, some aren't .....

I can make my own thoughts and decisions without bbarr. And I do think it's part of the woman's body. It's growing inside of her. How can it not be part of her body? 😕