22 Oct 04
Originally posted by bbarrhttp://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_pain.htm
A fetus doesn't develop the ability to feel pain until the ncecessary neurophysiology has developed, and that doesn't occur until the second trimester. In the first trimester, the fetus has no perspective because it lacks the necessary causal infrastructure, the wiring isn't there, and neither is consciousness. You're right that once is conscious, it ha ...[text shortened]... ry for having a right to life, nobody who had yet reached puberty would have a right to life. 😕
See website above. You are probably right about first and second trimester fetuses not feeling pain, but since some abortions do occur later, albeit less common, there is compouding evidence that these fetuse can feel pain....also, since when do we consider the ability to feel pain to be the dividing line between aborting a baby and not? You know where I stand on abortion, (pro-life/pro choice, under certain cercumstances) so I won't elaborate, however I will repeat that using it simply as a form of bith control, IMHO, is abhorent...and shows a lack of respect for life in general, and human life in particular...
22 Oct 04
1 edit
bbarr,
To make your logical argument valid the one question you will need to be able to answer is...What causes us to be conscious… i.e.… what makes me…me or you…you?
I know that spirituality or faith has answered these questions for a great many people… it is called the soul. God prepares the way for a soul. Denying a soul a body is a crime against god.
I also know that science has many theories on “what is a consciousness”, but they are no more credible than the answers given by spirituality or faith, because they cannot prove or disprove the existence of a soul.
If you could disprove the existence of a soul you would have an excellent argument.
What I am trying to say is that you cannot logically decide when consciousness (not just reacting and making judgments about ones surroundings and reacting, but the actual consciousness of being you) begins; both sides “science and faith” in this matter are both equally right, and equally wrong in the eyes of logical argument.
While your arguments are a valid opinion, they are not fact.
Mike
22 Oct 04
Originally posted by chancremechanicWell, I think those later abortions only justified when the mother's life is at stake. I don't think that the mere ability to feel pain (or, more generally, to suffer) determines the moral status of an entity, though it seems obvious that it is a factor. Why is there no moral prohibition against killing bacteria or viruses or fungi if the possession of psychological capabilities don't factor into attributions of moral considerability? Anyway, I think respect for the lives of persons is of paramount importance, but I don't think all human organisms are persons. For instance, a human whose brain has been severly damaged such that they are no longer capable of any mentality at all (i.e., there is nothing going on inside their heads, though their heart continues beating, they continue breathing and digesting, etc.) has stopped being a person in the relevant sense, even though they still live. I don't think such a human has any rights at all. Do you?
http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_pain.htm
See website above. You are probably right about first and second trimester fetuses not feeling pain, but since some abortions do occur later, albeit less common, there is compouding evidence that these fetuse can feel pain....also, since when do we consider the ability to feel pain to be the dividing ...[text shortened]... , is abhorent...and shows a lack of respect for life in general, and human life in particular...
22 Oct 04
1 edit
Originally posted by rapalla7Either our brains cause us to be conscious or they do not. If they do, then my argument stands. If they do not, then something else must cause us to be conscious. If you think that God causes us to be conscious by providing our bodies with conscious souls, you'll need to provide some argument for that claim. Further, if God provides us with souls, and our souls are eternal, then the destruction of a fetus' body is not sufficient to destroy who the fetus really is, as the destruction of its body isn't sufficient to destroy its soul. Now, you claim that denying a soul a body is a crime against God. First, if God is powerful enough to ensoul one body, why can't he insert the soul of the aborted fetus into the next available body? Second, even if God can't insert the soul into another body, why is this a crime, given that the soul doesn't suffer as a result from being denied this body (since it is non-physical and can exist independently of a body)? Third, why should we believe any of this anyway, given the massive evidence that our conscious states can be effected or eliminated by changes to our brain? If I remove your fusiform gyrus, you will no longer be able to experience color. If I give you a pshychotropic, you may experience extreme disturbances to your conscious states. Intracranial pressure may cause you to lose consciousness. Etc. etc. etc. Given these causal links between the brain and consciousness, it seems the burden of proof lies with the religious folk. Are we to believe that psychotropic drugs and blows to the head cause changes to consciousness because they effect the soul? If so, how do they do that, given that the soul is supposedly a non-physical thing? How does something physical like a chemical interact with something that has no mass, occupies no space, has no determinate location, etc?
bbarr,
To make your logical argument valid the one question you will need to be able to answer is...What causes us to be conscious… i.e.… what makes me…me or you…you?
I know that spirituality or faith has answered these questions fo ...[text shortened]... arguments are a valid opinion, they are not fact.
Mike
22 Oct 04
Originally posted by Remora91When you refer to YOU, you refer to an individual being. And when you refer to YOUR mother , you refer to another individual being. How can these two ever be the same???
Not now, no. I'm not growing inside of her. I've been born. I'm 13 years old. Fetuses, on the other hand, have not been born.
22 Oct 04
Originally posted by bbarrbbarr,
Either our brains cause us to be conscious or they do not. If they do, then my argument stands. If they do not, then something else must cause us to be conscious. If you think that God causes us to be conscious by providing our bodies with conscious souls, you'll need to provide some argument for that claim. Further, if God provides us with souls, and our ...[text shortened]... interact with something that has no mass, occupies no space, has no determinate location, etc?
I do not have time to debate this at this time. I am at work. I will do my best to answer your questions and we will try to define how to proceed with the debate. You must provide me with your position. Example: Are you saying there is no god or soul?
Are you saying that god doesn't mind?
If so, in logical debate the burden of proof will lie with you; if you cannot disprove your opponents point with fact, you must agree with it, or let their argument stand.
At this point I am not debating souls or god. I am debating how you can logically argue from the point of theories presented as fact.
What would be a logical debate is a debate on whether or not the government can dictate morals to anyone at all, as we don’t all have a faith or any spirituality.
Mike
22 Oct 04
Originally posted by rapalla7I'm claiming what I claimed in my post above. I provided my position there. I don't know what the term "god" refers to. If, by "god", you mean some omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent creature, then I don't think god exists. If, by "soul", you mean some non-physical entity through which bodies are conscious, which makes each of us who we are and persists after death, then I don't think there is a soul. Now, I've claimed above that I think the brain is responsible for consciousness. I've even provided an argument for this claim. I've also provided a set of objections to the rival claim that we are conscious in virtue of having a non-physical soul. So, I'm not sure why you think the burden of proof here lies with me. You're the one that isn't providing any arguments!
bbarr,
I do not have time to debate this at this time. I am at work. I will do my best to answer your questions and we will try to define how to proceed with the debate. You must provide me with your position. Example: Are you saying there is no god or soul?
Are you saying that god doesn't mind?
If so, in logical debate the burden of proof will lie ...[text shortened]... dictate morals to anyone at all, as we don’t all have a faith or any spirituality.
Mike
22 Oct 04
Originally posted by royalchickenhttp://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/
Basically, 'burden of proof' is a bogus concept. If someone makes claim A and someone else claims ~A, then we can't just take someone's inability to argue for A, say ''Burden of proof is on you'' and concluded ~A. Remember the 'wife-beating' thing from FW? This is basically it.
Includes: Appeal to Ignorance ("Ad Ignorantiam"😉
Description of Burden of Proof
Burden of Proof is a fallacy in which the burden of proof is placed on the wrong side. Another version occurs when a lack of evidence for side A is taken to be evidence for side B in cases in which the burden of proof actually rests on side B. A common name for this is an Appeal to Ignorance. This sort of reasoning typically has the following form:
Claim X is presented by side A and the burden of proof actually rests on side B.
Side B claims that X is false because there is no proof for X.
In many situations, one side has the burden of proof resting on it. This side is obligated to provide evidence for its position. The claim of the other side, the one that does not bear the burden of proof, is assumed to be true unless proven otherwise. The difficulty in such cases is determining which side, if any, the burden of proof rests on. In many cases, settling this issue can be a matter of significant debate. In some cases the burden of proof is set by the situation. For example, in American law a person is assumed to be innocent until proven guilty (hence the burden of proof is on the prosecution). As another example, in debate the burden of proof is placed on the affirmative team. As a final example, in most cases the burden of proof rests on those who claim something exists (such as Bigfoot, psychic powers, universals, and sense data).
Examples of Burden of Proof
Bill: "I think that we should invest more money in expanding the interstate system."
Jill: "I think that would be a bad idea, considering the state of the treasury."
Bill: "How can anyone be against highway improvements?"
Bill: "I think that some people have psychic powers."
Jill: "What is your proof?"
Bill: "No one has been able to prove that people do not have psychic powers."
"You cannot prove that God does not exist, so He does."
22 Oct 04
Originally posted by bbarrbbarr,
I'm claiming what I claimed in my post above. I provided my position there. I don't know what the term "god" refers to. If, by "god", you mean some omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent creature, then I don't think god exists. If, by "soul", you mean some non-physical entity through which bodies are conscious, which makes each of us who we are an ...[text shortened]... ink the burden of proof here lies with me. You're the one that isn't providing any arguments!
I cannot debate your opinion. I could say that I think it is wrong, but that would be my opinion.
The problem is, is that both sides of the issue of god or soul, what have you; existing or not, are both invalid arguments, but valid opinions. They cannot be logically debated from either side because of no substantial proof from either party.
That is why I said it would be a better debate to debate whether or not the government can dictate a moral law.
Mike
22 Oct 04
Originally posted by bbarrThey have a right to dignity and respect. The family of such a person should have the right to make the choice to "pull the plug", so to speak, if all else fails....in the same sense, a fetus, as a living entity, should have the basic right to live, unless of course the mother's life is in danger and an emergency "abort" is unavoidable...but, we can continue to debate, and we will end up right back where we started; that is usually the results of such controversy. I do see your point, though...🙂
Well, I think those later abortions only justified when the mother's life is at stake. I don't think that the mere ability to feel pain (or, more generally, to suffer) determines the moral status of an entity, though it seems obvious that it is a factor. Why is there no moral prohibition against killing bacteria or viruses or fungi if the possession of psy ...[text shortened]... sense, even though they still live. I don't think such a human has any rights at all. Do you?
22 Oct 04
Originally posted by rapalla7My debate with LoTChessboard relied on no assumptions about the existence of God or a soul. That debate concerned the criteria for the possession of rights. LoTChessboard claimed, first, that the fact that a fetus was alive was sufficient for it to have a right to life. I presented a counter-example showing that merely being alive was not sufficient for having a right to life (e.g., bacteria and viruses are alive, as are individual cells, but they have no such rights). LoTChessboard then claimed that being conscious was sufficient for having rights. I provided an entailment of that claim, namely that fetuses aren't conscious until the second trimester, so early abortions would still be permissible on that view. LoTChessboard then claimed that the mere potential to develop consciousness was sufficient for having rights. I presented a counter-example showing that this claim entails that individual eggs and sperm would have rights, which is an absurd conclusion. Neither LoTChessboard nor I have presented any arguments that rely upon either the existence or non-existence of God. If LoTChessboard were to argue that my claim that the fetus doesn't become conscious until the second trimester was false, because fetuses have souls from the moment of conception, I would reply with the arguments I gave you above. There is overwhelming evidence that changes to the brain cause changes in consciousness. There is overwhelming evidence that sever damage to the brain causes loss of consciousness. So, the reasonable inference to make is that consciousness (in humans, at least) relies upon having a brain with a particular functional organization. Please point out which of the arguments I've presented in this thread are invalid, and why they are invalid. You can merely assert that my arguments are invalid, but why should I take your assertion seriously when you've failed to provide any arguments in its support?
bbarr,
I cannot debate your opinion. I could say that I think it is wrong, but that would be my opinion.
The problem is, is that both sides of the issue of god or soul, what have you; existing or not, are both invalid arguments, but valid opinions. They cannot be logically debated from either side because of no substantial proof from either party. ...[text shortened]... be a better debate to debate whether or not the government can dictate a moral law.
Mike
22 Oct 04
1 edit
Originally posted by chancremechanicWell, what is the basis of these rights? You are claiming that a human organism that has no mind still has whatever conditions are necessary for having certain rights. What are these conditions? Is it sufficient for having rights that a human be alive? If so, then why don't all living (e.g., bacteria and viruses) have rights? In particular, why don't bacteria and viruses have a right to be treated with dignity and respect?
They have a right to dignity and respect. The family of such a person should have the right to make the choice to "pull the plug", so to speak, if all else fails....in the same sense, a fetus, as a living entity, should have the b ...[text shortened]... the results of such controversy. I do see your point, though...🙂
Notice that you've claimed that the family of such a human organism has the right to decide whether he lives or dies. So, you are committed to the claim that a human organism with no mind no longer has the right to life. If he did retain a right to life, then it wouldn't be the family's right to choose to pull the plug and kill him. So, you are committed to the claim that when a human organism no longer has a mind, it loses the right to life. But this entails that having a mind is a necessary condition for having the right to life. And that entails that abortions don't violate a fetus's right to life when they are performed prior to the fetus developing a mind. You could still claim that the fetus has a right to be treated with dignity and respect, even though it doesn't have right to life. But, if you do claim this, then you'll have to explain why this is so, as I objected in the first paragraph of this post, above.
22 Oct 04
1 edit
Originally posted by rapalla7Please note the following, taken from your cut and paste job. Please pay attention to the text in bold:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/
Includes: Appeal to Ignorance ("Ad Ignorantiam"😉
Description of Burden of Proof
Burden of Proof is a fallacy in which the burden of proof is placed on the wrong side. Another version oc ...[text shortened]... "
"You cannot prove that God does not exist, so He does."
Burden of Proof is a fallacy in which the burden of proof is placed on the wrong side. Another version occurs when a lack of evidence for side A is taken to be evidence for side B in cases in which the burden of proof actually rests on side B. A common name for this is an Appeal to Ignorance.
Asserting that the other side has the burden of proof is only fallacious when you do it incorrectly. I've presented arguments for the claim that the brain is responsible for consciousness. I've presented evidence of the causal connection between the brain and conscious states. You have presented no arguments for the claim that the soul is responsible for consciousness, and no arguments for the claim that denying a soul a body is a crime against God. Further, even though you have presented no arguments in support of these claims, I've presented objections to them. So, the burden of proof is on you, and my attribution of the burden of proof to you is not fallacious.
22 Oct 04
1 edit
bbarr,
"There is an interesting tendency for the anti-choice folks to project their own psychologies onto fetuses, but that is an error. Fetuses, especially early in their development, don't have any psychologies at all."
Hope you dont mind me parseling that out of one of your earlier posts.
This statement may have confused me. Who are you talking about when you say "anti-choice folks".
Mike