Atheist voting No [See mod note in OP]

people_sheeple

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

In that stage I would see no reason not to congratulate her on reaching the first stage in a further life plan, and I would indeed expect her to make all the moves possible to commit to making the healthiest result possible for all concerned by avoiding the intake of chemicals that are not required, and would put the quality of the process, and it's results, in jeopardy.

WOW, Your choice of words says it all, you can't say it can you ?
I genuinely feel sorry for you.

It's a human life. A human life in development, the first ~9 months after implantation are inside the mothers womb, the rest of it's development outside the womb until adulthood.
Dress it up, use whatever wordsmithing you want, that life will one day, all going well, become an adult. Seriously, why else are you congratulating her ?
Abortion at any stage kills that life.

Wrongway1985

Get it Peeps Sheeps you want to continue baiting people for the sake of argument. If anything was dressed up by extremists as a referendum on genocide who could only think of themselves and how people should live their way, were unwilling to dissect a very very long list of actual issues posed that was a shame.

nozzferrahhtoo

people_sheeple wrote: »

WOW, Your choice of words says it all, you can't say it can you ? I genuinely feel sorry for you.

You feel sorry for me because I can not say what YOU want me to say, and instead say what I think is true? Well in that case you can keep your pity for yourself, because people in the world are not automatons that are designed to parrot the answers you want to hear.

people_sheeple wrote: »

It's a human life. A human life in development

Observer how you contradict yourself here though. You try to make out something is X and X in development at the same time. It is one or the other. You are either something, or becoming something, but you can not be both at the same time.

The fact is no one here appears to be denying that it is biologically a human life. Which is the simple point you appear to be missing, or at least avoiding. What they are denying is that it is a human person, as it lacks the most important prerequisites of same ENTIRELY at 10/12/16 weeks.

So again you can pocket your feux sympathies here because the reality is that the only thing "wrong" with me is that I see no reason to subscribe to the unwarranted narratives you are pushing. And I repeat, the ONLY reason to congratulate someone at the beginning of pregnancy is because they have attained a step in a process they wanted to attain. It is YOU that wants us to be congratulating them on a basis that has not come into play yet.

people_sheeple wrote: »

Seriously, why else are you congratulating her ?

Seriously, I just explained EXACTLY why. You not liking the answer does not magically mean it never happened.

Pete29

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Or debate from someone who has no points to make it seems.

If you don't think that abortion is morally problematic, at the very least, then there's nothing we can talk about it.

nozzferrahhtoo

Pete29 wrote: »

If you don't think that abortion is morally problematic, at the very least, then there's nothing we can talk about it.

Well you can leave the conversation any time you wish, but do not do so pretending that somehow this is my failing. It is not that there is nothing WE can talk about. There seemingly is nothing YOU can talk about. Much different.

And what I actually specifically said was that I do not think that "termination of a 10 week old fetus is morally problematic". Interesting that you need to modify my position before dismissing it.

Pete29

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Well you can leave the conversation any time you wish, but do not do so pretending that somehow this is my failing. It is not that there is nothing WE can talk about. There seemingly is nothing YOU can talk about. Much different.

And what I actually specifically said was that I do not think that "termination of a 10 week old fetus is morally problematic". Interesting that you need to modify my position before dismissing it.

If you don't accept that abortion at ten weeks is morally problematic, at the very least, then it's obvious we, i.e yourself and I, have nothing we can discuss further.

nozzferrahhtoo

Pete29 wrote: »

If you don't accept that abortion at ten weeks is morally problematic, at the very least, then it's obvious we, i.e yourself and I, have nothing we can discuss further.

Yeah funny how I do not "accept" positions and claims you refuse to substantiate in any way. I would have thought that as someone who made a point of claiming to be an atheist, that would be a way of thinking you were somewhat sympathetic to.

I also believe in the axiom of innocent until proven guilty. So if you want to indict the morality of a given action, then by all means do so. But taking one's ball and going home is certainly not likely to achieve that.

For me morality and ethics are in the business of mediating the well being, and actions, of sentient creatures. The fetus at 10 weeks is not such an entity. As such I fail to see the moral issue with termination of it.

See? I can explain my position. You.... not so much it seems. So you can bold the word "we" all you want, but seemingly the only one who has nothing to discuss further, is you. I have plenty.

Pete29

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Yeah funny how I do not "accept" positions and claims you refuse to substantiate in any way. I would have thought that as someone who made a point of claiming to be an atheist, that would be a way of thinking you were somewhat sympathetic to.

I also believe in the axiom of innocent until proven guilty. So if you want to indict the morality of a given action, then by all means do so. But taking one's ball and going home is certainly not likely to achieve that.

For me morality and ethics are in the business of mediating the well being, and actions, of sentient creatures. The fetus at 10 weeks is not such an entity. As such I fail to see the moral issue with termination of it.

See? I can explain my position. You.... not so much it seems. So you can bold the word "we" all you want, but seemingly the only one who has nothing to discuss further, is you. I have plenty.

So when does abortion become morally problematic?

nozzferrahhtoo

Pete29 wrote: »

So when does abortion become morally problematic?

See you do have stuff to discuss after all. You just have to ask questions.

For me? From the moment the biological entity transitions from being merely biological to being something we suspect has developed the faculties of sentience and consciousness.

As long as we have any reason to think such faculties have come into play, then the entity becomes morally relevant.

Though I must point out that if you had actually read, not skipped over, my previous post to you.... you would have known the answer to this question already.

blanch152

Pete29 wrote: »

If you don't accept that abortion at ten weeks is morally problematic, at the very least, then it's obvious we, i.e yourself and I, have nothing we can discuss further.

What is the basis of your take on abortion at ten weeks being morally problematic? I can get the humanistic approach with regards to late-term abortions, but the particular point of ten weeks being morally problematic is very confusing.

I get where a Christian or a Muslim would be coming from in seeing it as morally problematic, but an atheist, who you would presume would be guided by science and hard facts, rather than an unproven spirituality, I don't understand where they are coming from.

Remember, belief in some moral force or spiritual dimension to issues outside of scientifically proven facts is by definition not atheism. It is getting harder and harder to put any credibility into the OP of this thread.

Pete29

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

See you do have stuff to discuss after all. You just have to ask questions.

For me? From the moment the biological entity transitions from being merely biological to being something we suspect has developed the faculties of sentience and consciousness.

When does this transition occur? Is it moral to prevent this transition from occuring?

Is it immoral to end the life of a sentient creature? If so, why is it immoral to end the life of a sentient creature, but not immoral to end the life of a creature that will be sentient?

nozzferrahhtoo

Pete29 wrote: »

When does this transition occur?

We do not know. Thankfully for abortion we do not HAVE to know. We just need to know it has NOT occurred.

The analogy I often use is to blowing up a building. If you wanted to blow up a building, then you would need to know no one was in it.

If there was someone in it, then you do not actually need to know how many, what age, what race, what height, how they got there, what they are doing there, or just about anything else. The information they are there, is enough. The information they are not there, is enough.

Similarly since the vast majority of terminations happen by week 10, all we need to know is the transition has not occurred. Currently there is no scientific data suggesting the transition occurs before 24 weeks and much data showing it has not.

Therefore, the building is empty. Blow it up all you like. There is simply no one in there.

Pete29 wrote: »

Is it moral to prevent this transition from occuring?

That is at least a useful question! I have yet to see a moral or ethical argument to suggest we have any moral onus to allow, or assist, any non-sentient entity to become one. Nor does anyone seem moved to provide such an argument. One user did invent a "right to become sentient" in one thread, but then basically ran away from it when it was challenged.

I certainly see no reason to think we have such an onus. A thought experiment is useful here. Imagine I invented a general Artificial Intelligence which, when turned on, would achieve sentience and consciousness, suffering and well being, equalling or even exceeding our own. Just before pressing "on" I instead dismantle the entire machine and make toasters out of it for my mates.

Is there any argument on offer to suggest I have done anything morally wrong? Is there any argument to suggest I had a moral onus to hit the "on" button and assist this inert machine to reach it's potential for sentience?

I am not seeing any. Perhaps you know of one I do not.

Pete29 wrote: »

Is it immoral to end the life of a sentient creature?

Question too broad and too vague. What creature, how, when, why and under what circumstances and by what methods.

But this is drifting off the point. I am discussing the treatment of an entity that is not at all sentient, never has been, and is a distinct period of time away from ever being. So while discussing sentient entities might be useful in order to set parameters to the discussion.... it should still be noted it is far from what I am discussing.

people_sheeple

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

You feel sorry for me because I can not say what YOU want me to say, and instead say what I think is true? Well in that case you can keep your pity for yourself, because people in the world are not automatons that are designed to parrot the answers you want to hear.



Observer how you contradict yourself here though. You try to make out something is X and X in development at the same time. It is one or the other. You are either something, or becoming something, but you can not be both at the same time.

No I didn't contradict myself
if a car is in development, is it still a car ?
if a tree is in development, is it still a tree ?
if a computer program is in development, is it still a computer program?

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

The fact is no one here appears to be denying that it is biologically a human life. Which is the simple point you appear to be missing, or at least avoiding. What they are denying is that it is a human person, as it lacks the most important prerequisites of same ENTIRELY at 10/12/16 weeks.

Oh so you admit it's a human life then, but the morality of killing the human life is based on whether its a person or not ?
Go on tell us when it's a person then ?

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

So again you can pocket your feux sympathies here because the reality is that the only thing "wrong" with me is that I see no reason to subscribe to the unwarranted narratives you are pushing. And I repeat, the ONLY reason to congratulate someone at the beginning of pregnancy is because they have attained a step in a process they wanted to attain. It is YOU that wants us to be congratulating them on a basis that has not come into play yet.

Mary: Great news Nozz, I'm pregnant.
Nozz: Congratulations Mary on attaining a step in a process that will ultimately mean you have a baby at the end of it
Mary: Oh ok Nozz ..thanks I guess
Nozz: Now Mary, I'll congratulate you again when the human life you are carrying becomes a person
Mary: Oh right, when will that be Nozz ?
Nozz: We don't need to know that Mary, I just need to know when it definitely is a person...you see it's like when you're blowing up a building ...
Mary: ...ok, ok Nozz I get it Shall we just go for a few pints then ?
Nozz: Now Now Mary, even though that human life is not a person and I would be ok if you had an abortion to kill that human life. I could not condone drinking in your condition for fear it would harm that human life especially when it does become a person... whenever that is.
Mary:....

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Seriously, I just explained EXACTLY why. You not liking the answer does not magically mean it never happened.

From what I've read today from you, I'm not even sure you believe yourself Nozz.

nozzferrahhtoo

people_sheeple wrote: »

No I didn't contradict myself
if a car is in development, is it still a car ?
if a tree is in development, is it still a tree ?
if a computer program is in development, is it still a computer program?

Well yes you did, and the three questions you ask here prove it. We have words for trees in development for example, and none of them are "tree". We have words like "Shoot" "sprout" "Sapling" and so forth. And we have those words precisely because we recognise the distinction between being X and being X in development.

So you make my point for me, thanks for that.

people_sheeple wrote: »

Oh so you admit it's a human life then, but the morality of killing the human life is based on whether its a person or not ? Go on tell us when it's a person then ?

I generally reserve the word "admit" for when you actually illicit a confession or new information out of someone that they were somehow withholding. I have been posting on this thread and other abortion threads for some years now and I have said time and time and time again that I recognise distinct contextual uses of words like "Human" and "Human Life" and I recognise that SOME of them apply to the fetus and others do not.

So I have not "admitted" to anything here, I have merely continued to say what I have been saying on boards.ie for over a decade now.

We could go into great philosophical depth about the many definitions of the word "Person" out there if you want. I am happy to do that. But I would struggle to find a single meaningful or common usage of the word that does not at the minimum presuppose a human entity that has, or at some point had, the faculty of human consciousness or sentience. Even in our Science Fictions when discussing aliens or Artificial Intelligence we sometimes hear the characters refer to their "Humanity" even though they are clearly not human. Because we recognise that what constitutes our "Humanity" goes beyond the biological platform it happens to be instantiated on.

The simple fact is that a fetus at 10 weeks, when the majority of terminations actually occur, has not got this faculty, it never has had that faculty, and it is quite a distinct period of time away from having that faculty. Attempting to use words like "Person" to describe it therefore is bordering on sheer desperation.

people_sheeple wrote: »

Mary

Probably better that I speak in my own words rather than have you put words in my mouth by way of fantasy. Further to correct another error you are on the verge of not only making, but shoving into my mouth, there is somewhere between little and no evidence that moderate and controlled drinking has any negative implications on fetal development. It requires systematic abuse of alcohol and even the the evidence is contentious.

people_sheeple wrote: »

From what I've read today from you, I'm not even sure you believe yourself Nozz.

So since you can not rebut a thing I have said, and you have to straw man what I said by way of pointless fantasy conversations I have never once actually had with anyone...... you have to merely pretend something like this? There is that sheer desperation rearing it's head again.

But suffice to say you not understanding my points does not in any way mean I do not subscribe to them.

people_sheeple

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Well yes you did, and the three questions you ask here prove it. We have words for trees in development for example, and none of them are "tree". We have words like "Shoot" "sprout" "Sapling" and so forth. And we have those words precisely because we recognise the distinction between being X and being X in development.

So you make my point for me, thanks for that.

Ah come on now....A tree at 10 years old grows up and gets bigger for another 5 years. If It was a tree at 10 years old then it is a tree at 15 years old.
So what's the word for a car in development or a computer program in development ? If there's a single scenario where there is no distinction between X and X in development then actually you're wrong.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I generally reserve the word "admit" for when you actually illicit a confession or new information out of someone that they were somehow withholding. I have been posting on this thread and other abortion threads for some years now and I have said time and time and time again that I recognise distinct contextual uses of words like "Human" and "Human Life" and I recognise that SOME of them apply to the fetus and others do not.

So I have not "admitted" to anything here, I have merely continued to say what I have been saying on boards.ie for over a decade now.

Great something we agree on, that it is in fact a human life

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

We could go into great philosophical depth about the many definitions of the word "Person" out there if you want. I am happy to do that. But I would struggle to find a single meaningful or common usage of the word that does not at the minimum presuppose a human entity that has, or at some point had, the faculty of human consciousness or sentience. Even in our Science Fictions when discussing aliens or Artificial Intelligence we sometimes hear the characters refer to their "Humanity" even though they are clearly not human. Because we recognise that what constitutes our "Humanity" goes beyond the biological platform it happens to be instantiated on.


The simple fact is that a fetus at 10 weeks, when the majority of terminations actually occur, has not got this faculty, it never has had that faculty, and it is quite a distinct period of time away from having that faculty. Attempting to use words like "Person" to describe it therefore is bordering on sheer desperation.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

The fact is no one here appears to be denying that it is biologically a human life. Which is the simple point you appear to be missing, or at least avoiding. What they are denying is that it is a human person, as it lacks the most important prerequisites of same ENTIRELY at 10/12/16 weeks.

The word person in an example came from you.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Probably better that I speak in my own words rather than have you put words in my mouth by way of fantasy. Further to correct another error you are on the verge of not only making, but shoving into my mouth, there is somewhere between little and no evidence that moderate and controlled drinking has any negative implications on fetal development. It requires systematic abuse of alcohol and even the the evidence is contentious.

oh please, you know well the point I was making. Again you're just sidestepping the point. For your benefit, sub in "shall we go shoot up some heroin so"

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

So since you can not rebut a thing I have said, and you have to straw man what I said by way of pointless fantasy conversations I have never once actually had with anyone...... .

aaamm I think that perfectly describes you. The really difficult questions , you simply can't answer. The fantasy conversation with Mary was just to illustrate how ridiculous you were becoming.

nozzferrahhtoo

people_sheeple wrote: »

Ah come on now....A tree at 10 years old grows up and gets bigger for another 5 years. If It was a tree at 10 years old then it is a tree at 15 years old.

Ah come on now.... I have not said anything different. You are in fact once again making my point for me here. Which is great.

A Child at 10 years is a child at 15 years too. That does not tell us that at some point it was something other than a child, a fetus.

So yes a tree at 10 years is a tree at 15 years. But that does not change the fact that at some point it was something other than a tree. A seed. A sprout. A sapling.

people_sheeple wrote: »

The word person in an example came from you.

Not sure how that is relevant to replying to my point. The point again is that there are characteristics that make up "person" and the fetus lacks them. Picking out random historical points about the conversation appears to be something of a dodge and non-reply from you here.

Both too much and too little is being made of the word "Human" in this conversation. Too much is made of it by virtue of people not realizing that screaming words like that in the conversation simply begs the questions that are actually being asked of it. Too little is made of the word by virtue of the fact people are ignoring the varying meanings of such words in various contexts.

For example above you wrote "Great something we agree on, that it is in fact a human life" as if this was some kind of point you were making, or you were putting a flag in something that is at all relevant. I fear you are merely assuming the relevance of something like that without making it clear to anyone, including perhaps yourself, what you think that relevance even is.

people_sheeple wrote: »

oh please, you know well the point I was making. Again you're just sidestepping the point. For your benefit, sub in "shall we go shoot up some heroin so"

The issue is I do not think there is a point to "side step" in the first place. You APPEAR to think there is some disparity between finding it morally un-problematic to terminate the 10 week old fetus...... and finding it morally problematic to harm such a fetus in development.

What the focal point of where you think the disparity lies however is not being made clear by you. Rather you are posing rhetorical questions like you are waiting for some kinda "Gotcha!" to come from the answers that is wholly and entirely yet to materialise.

[QUOTE=people_sheeple;107133591aaamm I think that perfectly describes you. The really difficult questions , you simply can't answer. The fantasy conversation with Mary was just to illustrate how ridiculous you were becoming.[/QUOTE]

And yet there is no difficult question I have failed to answer. So you are getting needlessly petty and personal here in order to invent a narrative about me that demonstrably does not hold. Rather what I suspect is in play here is that you do not like the answers to the questions I have given, or I have failed to give the answers you have wanted me to give........ so you have chosen instead to parse that falsely as me not having answered them.

The reality of my position is in fact the exact opposite of your distortion of it here. In that my entire position on the subject of abortion is born from my having asked, and answered, questions of myself that people in general do not appear to want to even ask, let alone actually answer. Such as what IS it to be a human person, what ARE rights and morals and ethics, what ARE they for, WHERE do they come from, to WHAT are they directed, what does it even mean to say we "value" things, and what is it we actually do and should value in life, and humanity.

And it is the answers to those questions, answers you appear thus far unwilling and perhaps unequipped to accept, that have led me to a position where I find no coherence in any of the attempts to afford rights, and moral and ethical concerns, to a 10 week old fetus.

Overheal

people_sheeple wrote: »

No I didn't contradict myself
if a car is in development, is it still a car ?
if a tree is in development, is it still a tree ?
if a computer program is in development, is it still a computer program?

At the stages we are discussing:

The "car" is a series of dis-shelved components in some stage of pre-assembly or component fabrication. A transmission isn't a car - it's a transmission. It itself is made up of nuts, bolts, other fasteners, gears, shafts, gaskets, seals, oils, and other components and materials. Typically speaking a car is a car when it has wheels and the ability to be driven. I suppose on BMW's line in Greenville they would probably consider that to be at the 'marriage' station where the engine block is assembled into the vehicle, at this stage the only things not left in the car are fluids and cosmetic, interior and body work left to be done. Given fuel fluids and a key it would happily turn over and from most peoples sensibilities would be an automobile.

The "tree" is a sprout, at best. Courtesy Texas A&M:

"Sprout
An embryo is within each seed, but not all seeds will germinate. Favorable environmental conditions enable the embryo to grow, expand, and break through the seed coat using the stored food supply of the seed for the necessary energy to grow. The root grows downward to the soil to anchor the sprout and search for water and nutrients, while the sprout emerges from the ground seeking sunlight. Ideally, the sprout will find light and then the leaves, needles, or scales will develop further to allow the tree to make its own food through photosynthesis."

Sound familiar?

A tree at 10 years old grows up and gets bigger for another 5 years. If It was a tree at 10 years old then it is a tree at 15 years old.

And a child at 10 years old grows up and gets bigger for another 5 years, and becomes a teenager. But neither example is relevant to this example about what things are called when they are in gestational or early development

And the program, in this gestational state, is often called pseudo-code, or sometimes script depending on the stage of development. The complete program will be a compilation of numerous script files, functions, classes, and libraries.

So, keep reaching.

Oh so you admit it's a human life then, but the morality of killing the human life is based on whether its a person or not ?
Go on tell us when it's a person then ?

For thousands of years people have been happy with assuming this to be at the Quickening - the point at which the fetus starts kicking. This is well beyond 12 weeks of gestation, but a couple months before fetal viability. That is still not to say the fetus is born, or alive, etc.

blanch152

people_sheeple wrote: »

No I didn't contradict myself
if a car is in development, is it still a car ?
if a tree is in development, is it still a tree ?
if a computer program is in development, is it still a computer program?


.

people_sheeple wrote: »

Ah come on now....A tree at 10 years old grows up and gets bigger for another 5 years. If It was a tree at 10 years old then it is a tree at 15 years old.
So what's the word for a car in development or a computer program in development ? If there's a single scenario where there is no distinction between X and X in development then actually you're wrong.

Your arguments are rebounding on you.

A car in development is just a drawing on a page or in a computer. People crumple them up and start again. At a later stage it is a clump of electronic items and pieces of metal that are being tested and destroyed. At no stage is it an actual car.

A tree of 10 years is an adult tree, or at least a teenage tree. A seed, a sapling, a twig, they are not trees, they are potential trees only.

A computer program in development is just pieces of code that don't necessarily make a whole.

You have very accurately and eloquently made the argument that a fetus in development is not the same as a baby. Thank you.

RabbleRouser2k

A few friends who are atheists or spiritual were of a similar 'I'm undecided' and thus didn't vote.

Many others who were religious did vote yes. It's completely within your right to choose with all the choices available how you will vote.
So I can see why someone who is atheist would vote No, just as I can see how someone who's religious would vote yes.

Pete29

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

The longer answer is that a new born baby, a toddler, an adult, a coma patient, a person with impaired mental capacity, and so forth are all instances of human sentience. They all HAVE that faculty. A fetus at 10 weeks when the majority of abortion happens does not. Never has had. And is a distinct period away from ever having it.

So equivocating between different levels, or operational statuses, of human sentience misses the point and is merely a red herring. The point being that the 10 week old fetus is not just LESS sentient, it is not at all sentient. It simply lacks the faculty entirely.

I have personally undergone anesthetic for surgery. I was administered the drug and began counting back from ten. I got to eight before the lights went out.

My next conscious perception was waking up in a hospital bed feeling groggy. The was not simply less consciousness in-between these two moments, there was ZERO consciousness and sentience during this time. It was a kind of dreamless sleep.

You will also find some coma patients who experience something similar. They are going about their lives when an illness or accident results in them becoming comatose and don't experience anything while in this state.

So I didn't have any level of consciousness, sentience or their faculties while under anesthetic; either do some coma patients: Would it have been moral to kill me or them while in this state?

The analogy I often use is to blowing up a building. If you wanted to blow up a building, then you would need to know no one was in it.

If there was someone in it, then you do not actually need to know how many, what age, what race, what height, how they got there, what they are doing there, or just about anything else. The information they are there, is enough. The information they are not there, is enough.

Similarly since the vast majority of terminations happen by week 10, all we need to know is the transition has not occurred. Currently there is no scientific data suggesting the transition occurs before 24 weeks and much data showing it has not.

Therefore, the building is empty. Blow it up all you like. There is simply no one in there.

What if the building had been bought by several groups of homeless sentient beings before you blew it up? There was no one in the building, but you've just destroyed the structure in which these sentient beings would reside. Is it still ok to blow it up?

I certainly see no reason to think we have such an onus. A thought experiment is useful here. Imagine I invented a general Artificial Intelligence which, when turned on, would achieve sentience and consciousness, suffering and well being, equalling or even exceeding our own. Just before pressing "on" I instead dismantle the entire machine and make toasters out of it for my mates.

Is there any argument on offer to suggest I have done anything morally wrong? Is there any argument to suggest I had a moral onus to hit the "on" button and assist this inert machine to reach it's potential for sentience?

I am not seeing any. Perhaps you know of one I do not.

I would be skeptical in comparing general A.I to human intelligence and sentience. It's not clear general A.I would even be conscious. Neither is the example entirely analogous.

Let's say it is sentient for arguments sake though.

If you built a machine that could be independently sentient upon completion of its construction and it took several weeks for that mind to develop after pressing the on button, and assuming turning it on wouldn't result in the abject suffering of other sentient beings, then yes, it would be a moral wrong to create such a machine only to terminate its developing mind and use it as scrap metal.

nozzferrahhtoo

Pete29 wrote: »

The was not simply less consciousness in-between these two moments, there was ZERO consciousness and sentience during this time. It was a kind of dreamless sleep.

That is your subjective experience you are talking about. Not consciousness itself. Different thing. In either case however the faculty of consciousness has been curtailed. It has not been removed. It is still THERE, it is just not operating the same way.

This is not comparable at all to an entity where it is wholly absent, has never been there, and has not be constructed yet.

This is no small difference.

Pete29 wrote: »

What if the building had been bought by several groups of homeless sentient beings before you blew it up? There was no one in the building, but you've just destroyed the structure in which these sentient beings would reside. Is it still ok to blow it up?

You are over stretching the analogy in order to avoid the point of analogy. The point of analogy was not to equivocate over property law. If you are attempting to make a point in response to mine therefore, it has been lost.

Pete29 wrote: »

I would be skeptical in comparing general A.I to human intelligence and sentience. It's not clear general A.I would even be conscious. Neither is the example entirely analogous.

If you want to get pedantic then it is also not "clear" that WE are conscious either. Free will and consciousness could be entirely illusory for all we know. There was a scene in one of the AI Hollywood movies where a government agent asked an AI "Can you prove you are sentient?" to which the AI just replied "Can you?". Neither, clearly, could.

I have yet to come across anything that is "entirely analogous" but thankfully I have yet to use an analogy that requires that.

Pete29 wrote: »

If you built a machine that could be independently sentient upon completion of its construction and it took several weeks for that mind to develop after pressing the on button, and assuming turning it on wouldn't result in the abject suffering of other sentient beings, then yes, it would be a moral wrong to create such a machine only to terminate its developing mind and use it as scrap metal.

Great. So that is the premise/thesis. Which you are now asserting. So what would be required next is for you to argue that position rather than merely assert it. This you have not yet done. At this time I will merely assume it to be forthcoming.