Legalise abortion

Again you can lie about my position all you like. However I am repeating it over and over…

From the start my position has been directed at the faculty of consciousness itself. I do not need to, nor have I, equivocated between different types, levels or statuses of the faculty. If you want to address that, which is my actual position, then do so. Otherwise it is not me you are talking with.

Infants in fact do have these parts of the brain and we do not have any idea what the subjective experience of being such an infant is. Yes, it will develop yet further as it ages, but I do not worry about that because, yet again, my position is directed at the faculty as a whole.

However this is entirely irrelevant as my entire position is directed at identifying when this faculty is not functioning AT ALL. So different levels of it between infants and adults is entirely meaningless to the position I espouse.

Yet again you can call me dishonest all you want. I merely thought you had issues with large pieces of text and offered to work with you on this. If you do not require this then so be it, but if you wish to take offence at my offer then this is entirely your issue to deal with and not mine.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Again you can lie about my position all you like. However I am repeating it over and over…

All you are repeating is a complete denial of the points made to you. I've pointed to posts where you have changed your position, so the evidence would point to you rather than I telling the porkies now.

From the start my position has been directed at the faculty of consciousness itself. I do not need to, nor have I, equivocated between different types, levels or statuses of the faculty. If you want to address that, which is my actual position, then do so. Otherwise it is not me you are talking with.

Indeed you have not equivocated between different types, levels or statuses of the faculty - you've barley even tried to define said faculty, for that matter. It seems to be some vague notion of what allows us to understand the concept of rights.

Even without a more concrete definition, exceptions to your rule are already becoming necessary. Infants do not have this faculty. The severely mentally handicapped do not have this faculty. The senile do not have this faculty.

Yet they all qualify for rights by your logic, thanks to a collection of caveats based on past possession, partial possession, future possession or some such.

It is evident from such exceptions, that this faculty simply does not make a good measure of humanity, yet you doggedly cling to it so that it may somehow be forced to fit into your World-view.

Infants in fact do have these parts of the brain and we do not have any idea what the subjective experience of being such an infant is. Yes, it will develop yet further as it ages, but I do not worry about that because, yet again, my position is directed at the faculty as a whole.

As I have already asked, please demonstrate this claim. Back it up.

However this is entirely irrelevant as my entire position is directed at identifying when this faculty is not functioning AT ALL. So different levels of it between infants and adults is entirely meaningless to the position I espouse.

This faculty is not functioning AT ALL in many cases outside of prenatal development. But you have already admitted that even if it is not, this is not important - for example, having once possessed this faculty is sufficient for you. An exception to your rule. A caveat.

Yet again you can call me dishonest all you want. I merely thought you had issues with large pieces of text and offered to work with you on this. If you do not require this then so be it, but if you wish to take offence at my offer then this is entirely your issue to deal with and not mine.

No, you tried a cheap, and rather old, debating tactic. I suggest you quit it as it is not getting you anywhere.

Again I have no tactic here. You indicated that long text might be trouble for you and I offered to work with you on it. If you have an issue with that then so be it. The issue is yours not mine.

I have laid out my position. If you want to deal with it then I am here for you. If you want to keep claiming I am saying something I am not then I can not help you.

Here is my position again:

Rights appear to come FROM the human faculty of conscience. I think therefore it is to this faculty we assign it. Therefore upon the first rise of this faculty in the foetus until the death of that faculty at death I think the entity has come “alive” in the human sense of rights.

I therefore think we should assign these rights to that faculty (regardless of its day to day level of function) and before it has developed at all I do not see any trouble with engaging in abortion.

For those hung up on this infants having consciousness lark. They infact do. All the basic thalamo-cortical circuitry necessary for conscious precepts is in place.

Take this quote from Scientific American:

Consciousness requires a sophisticated network of highly interconnected components, nerve cells. Its physical substrate, the thalamo-cortical complex that provides consciousness with its highly elaborate content, begins to be in place between the 24th and 28th week of gestation. Roughly two months later synchrony of the electroencephalographic (EEG) rhythm across both cortical hemispheres signals the onset of global neuronal integration. Thus, many of the circuit elements necessary for consciousness are in place by the third trimester.

Invasive experiments in rat and lamb pups and observational studies using ultrasound and electrical recordings in humans show that the third-trimester fetus is almost always in one of two sleep states. These stages correspond to rapid-eye-movement (REM) and slow-wave sleep common to all mammals. In late gestation the fetus is in one of these two sleep states 95 percent of the time, separated by brief transitions.

As Hugo Lagercrantz, a pediatrician at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, discovered two decades ago, a massive surge of norepinephrine—more powerful than during any skydive or exposed climb the fetus may undertake in its adult life—as well as the release from anesthesia and sedation that occurs when the fetus disconnects from the maternal placenta, arouses the baby so that it can deal with its new circumstances. It draws its first breath, wakes up and begins to experience life.

On top of this Dr. Peter Wolff of Boston and Professor Heinz Prechtl of the Netherlands describe to us the 6 states of consciousness in new borns. Their work is worth reading.

And if anyone on the thread wants religious sources and not just peer reviewed science you will find at http://www.religioustolerance.org that they say:

26 weeks or 6 months: The fetus 14" long and almost two pounds. The lungs' bronchioles develop. Interlinking of the brain's neurons begins. The higher functions of the fetal brain turn on for the first time. Some rudimentary brain waves can be detected. The fetus will be able to feel pain for the first time. It has become conscious of its surroundings. The fetus has become a sentient human life for the first time.

But I personally do not take peoples word for it. I include that merely for people who like such sources. On science I stick to peer reviewed science such as the paper "The Emergence of Human Consciousness: From Fetal to Neonatal Life" by LAGERCRANTZ, HUGO; CHANGEUX, JEAN-PIERRE in Pediatric Research: March 2009 - Volume 65 - Issue 3 which concludes:

A simple definition of consciousness is sensory awareness of the body, the self, and the world. The fetus may be aware of the body, for example by perceiving pain. It reacts to touch, smell, and sound, and shows facial expressions responding to external stimuli. However, these reactions are probably preprogrammed and have a subcortical nonconscious origin. Furthermore, the fetus is almost continuously asleep and unconscious partially due to endogenous sedation. Conversely, the newborn infant can be awake, exhibit sensory awareness, and process memorized mental representations. It is also able to differentiate between self and nonself touch, express emotions, and show signs of shared feelings.

It is in fact my position that these "shared feelings" are where much of our species morality is based upon but that is another discussion.

Sarah Belle Dougherty in her study of the works of books such as "Infant Culture" by Jane and Joseph Jackson and "The Secret Life of the Unborn Child" by Thomas Verny, M.D. concludes that:

Between 28 to 34 weeks his brain's neural circuits are as advanced as a newborn's and the cerebral cortex is mature enough to support consciousness; a few weeks later brain waves, including those of REM dreams, become distinct. Thus, throughout the third trimester he is equipped with most of the physiological capability of a newborn.

So my position here is that they have this faculty. It may not be operating at the full level that you and I enjoy, but it is still present and my position is not to equivocate on levels of this faculty, but its presence or total absence.

In a discussion on rights which come from this faculty, I find it no great leap to suggest that this faculty is elevated beyond any other concern in the discussion. It certainly is not DNA we give rights to, nor taxonomy, nor limbs or flesh. It is the human mind and once that begins to develop I think we should give the entity all the rights we give to any human mind which they will retain until death.

That part of us which makes us truly human in the sense of culture, humanity, consciousness, rights and morality has arisen in these entities and I think they deserve all the protection that our concept of rights affords them. It is for this reason I would not support abortion after the 16 week cut off I have stipulated.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Again I have no tactic here. You indicated that long text might be trouble for you and I offered to work with you on it. If you have an issue with that then so be it. The issue is yours not mine.

Why do you insist on repeating this? I've rejected this as a cynical ploy by yourself. You're not convincing me; who are you trying to convince with your repetition?

I have laid out my position. If you want to deal with it then I am here for you. If you want to keep claiming I am saying something I am not then I can not help you.

You've actually laid out a number of positions, which have been changing as the discussion has progressed. You began, a month ago or so, by discussing conciousness, then this became sentience and a few days ago conscience.

It seems that whenever you 'repeat' your position it changes; you stated it 'again' a few pages back, challenging me to find caveats. I supplied two. You then first claimed that what you stated was covered by what you wrote (which was easily refutable) and then attempted to change your story to say that in reality this was all an iterative process and your changing your story was part of this.

Too many inconsistencies and contradictions, I'm afraid.

Here is my position again:

Rights appear to come FROM the human faculty of conscience. I think therefore it is to this faculty we assign it. Therefore upon the first rise of this faculty in the foetus until the death of that faculty at death I think the entity has come “alive” in the human sense of rights.

Again? Quite different to this. You have now abandoned that "part of us which comes up with this notion of rights in the first place", to human conscience (a different beast altogether). Additionally you have added a "once you're in, you don't lose it" clause, since your earlier declaration.

I therefore think we should assign these rights to that faculty (regardless of its day to day level of function) and before it has developed at all I do not see any trouble with engaging in abortion.

Seeing as this quality is conscience today, I should point out that this has not developed in children until well after birth - infants are extremely egocentric; hide something from their field of vision and they assume it has ceased to exist. Conscience has not yet developed - neurologically, their brains have not yet fully developed. By your definition, they do not yet qualify for rights.

All before we even begin to consider testing your premise (and that is all it is) of ascribing humanity or rights to conciousness / sentience / conscience / whatever-you'll-call-it-next, in the first place.

I'm not sure why I'm even bothering to respond at this stage to you. You appear to be consciously avoiding any direct response to your inconsistencies I've repeatedly raised, resorting instead to repetitive denial and wholesale revisionism. I doubt this post will get anything different.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Rights appear to come FROM the human faculty of conscience.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

For those hung up on this infants having consciousness lark. They infact do.

I know they've similar spelling, but you do know that they're not actually the same thing.

AARRRGH

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I fail to see how this is relevant either I am afraid. In fact it appears to support my side rather than yours. Look at your choice of language.

If you do not have an abortion you WILL produce a life. Future tense. In other words at the point of having an abortion you have NOT YET produced one. You are basing your position on what MIGHT be true and not what IS true. This is inherently problematic.

It would make just as much sense to say “If you did not become celibate you will produce a life”. So why is abortion wrong and not celibacy? Or condoms? Or the pill?

Ahh, your logic makes no sense.

Not having sex, and having sex + aborting the unborn child are totally different.

I'm not going to try to convince you. Bye.

drkpower

Nozz, it is impossible to debate with you when the gound under your feet continually shifts from 'when the faculty is not there at all' to 'the time the elements that create it are not even there either' to 'when these parts of the brain.....start to form' to 'the faculty in 'ANY state of operation or maturity'.

If you cant see the difference between & inconsistency in these various positions, which many people have repeatedly explained to you, I dont know what will be gained by further discussion. You can take a horse to water, but you cant make him drink....or even take a sip, it appears....:P

Your position is either completely untenable or you have been unable to explain it convincingly despite many attempts.

But I will leave it with a quote from the opening line of the the peer reviewed paper that you supposedly rely on for your theory.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

On science I stick to peer reviewed science such as the paper "The Emergence of Human Consciousness: From Fetal to Neonatal Life" by LAGERCRANTZ, HUGO; CHANGEUX, JEAN-PIERRE in Pediatric Research: March 2009 - Volume 65 - Issue 3 which concludes:

HUGO wrote: »

Consciousness in general and the birth of consciousness in particular remain as key puzzles confronting the scientific worldview

But you are happy to rely on certain selected analyses and views from certain, no doubt capable, experts to base such an utterly fundamental decision when those same experts, in their opening salvo, acknowledge that the entire area remains a 'puzzle'.

I'll leave it at that.

Corinthian,

As I said, I offered my help in good faith. If you want to take insult where none is meant then so be it. It is not my issue.

My position has not changed, much as you want to keep saying over and over it has. However I have laid out my position more than once in the last couple of pages. I guess your insitance it has changed is due to your lack of willingness or capability to deal with it as it stands?

Your caveats fail because from the START I said that I was talking about the faculty of consciousness. Not once did I equivocate on types. Your “caveats” were just to list two differing types of this faculty. However they are still this faculty, so were covered by my position from the start.

So try again, and try and deal with the position as it has been laid out in the last pages.

Consciousness has been shown in infants and new borns and I have laid out a wealth of science peer reviewed papers to support this. Ignore them if you will, but do not presume to think doing so is clever.

AARRRGH wrote: »

Ahh, your logic makes no sense.

Not having sex, and having sex + aborting the unborn child are totally different.

I'm not going to try to convince you. Bye.

Not really as by your own admission you WILL produce a life future tense. Hence you have not done so yet. You can not do in the future what you have already completed doing unless you intend to do it again.

Nozz, it is impossible to debate with you when the gound under your feet continually shifts from 'when the faculty is not there at all' to 'the time the elements that create it are not even there either' to 'when these parts of the brain.....start to form' to 'the faculty in 'ANY state of operation or maturity'.

Nothing is shifting, you just are not understanding me.

Let me spell out my line of thought once more and do it in short simple steps this time.

You will see where in my line of thinking the phrases you list above appear. They appear as part of a sequence of thought, not as a constant shifting between positions.

Note: This is the same position I have held from the start but spelt out step by step. It also includes and highlights points of falsifiability which if shown would prove me entirely wrong.

I was asked my opinion on abortion once and I worked on it like this.

1) The discussion of abortion is about “right to life”. The main issue on the subject is that abortion is wrong because the foetus has some “right to life”.

2) I asked myself where this “right” comes from.

3) I find no other source of “rights” other than the human faculty of consciousness. (This is the first point where my position is falsifiable. Another source of rights, such as a god entity or the existence of an objective moral order, would instantly negate my position. However no evidence is offered for the existence of any such entities).

4) I find therefore that in a conversation of “rights” it is this faculty that is elevated in importance above any other. Nothing else in a discussion about “rights” CAN be more important other than its source. Without it, there would not even BE rights to discuss in the first place.

5) Given this reverence for the faculty I think it is TO this faculty we should assign it, regardless of what state an individual example of it is in at any given time. Note I talk of the faculty as a whole across our entire specifies in all its states. This has always been my intention, despite people saying my clarification on this point equates to a dishonest shifting of position. The “right to life” is not given to DNA, or cells, or taxonomy but to that faculty that gives rise to it in my opinion.

6) Deciding when consciousness actually fully arises in a human is impossible for us at this time. As you pointed out yourself “Consciousness in general and the birth of consciousness in particular remain as key puzzles confronting the scientific worldview“

7) Given this problem I asked myself “Since we can not establish a time when it certainly IS there, canwe based on all our current knowledge find a time when it certainly is NOT there?

8) I identified one key element without which everything we know tells us consciousness has not even started to arise, let alone is there a chance that it has fully formed. Without that element, there is no reason to think the entity conscious. (Second point of falsifiabiltiy. Find consciousness in a human which does not have this element and my position is instantly falsified).

9) This knowledge now leads me to a point in fetal development of 20 weeks when this essential element begins to form. Once it BEGINS to form we do not understand enough to say whether consciousness is there or not.

10) Due to the fact some develop faster than others, and due to the need to pre-empt the “slippery slop” fallacy I incorporate an immense buffer zone of 20% into this to realise a genuine cut off for abortion of 16 weeks.

drkpower

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

8) I identified one key element without which everything we know tells us consciousness has not even started to arise, let alone is there a chance that it has fully formed. Without that element, there is no reason to think the entity conscious.
9) This knowledge now leads me to a point in fetal development of 20 weeks when this essential element begins to form. Once it BEGINS to form we do not understand enough to say whether consciousness is there or not.

These are the (main) bits you are getting wrong. You use the term 'begin to form'. You have cited articles whuch actually cite various structures/complexes as being responsible for the faculty/'this essential element'. One of the latest is the thalamo-cortical complex. Of course, anatomically the thalamo-cortical complex 'begins to form', at the latest, in the 6-8 week period with the development of the immature/undeveloped forebrain. It may not function yet, but it has 'begun to form'. As you sadi already, function is not important, it is whether the actual parts are in place. And they are, from a very early stage, cvertainly well before your 20 week suggestion.

But most problematic of all; there are so so many peer - reviewed journals out there, including the one you cited, that state that the question of when conciousness develops/begins to form is not understood, is a 'puzzle'; they all give their theories, but they quite correctly recognise the doubt, the uncomplete nature of the science. But you feel comfortable on deciding on issues of life and death based on this incomplete science; not good enough, Im afraid.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

As I said, I offered my help in good faith. If you want to take insult where none is meant then so be it. It is not my issue.

What is this? Repeat it often enough and it might stick? I don't believe you. I've shown you why. Deal with it and move on.

My position has not changed, much as you want to keep saying over and over it has. However I have laid out my position more than once in the last couple of pages.

And each time it changes...

Your caveats fail because from the START I said that I was talking about the faculty of consciousness. Not once did I equivocate on types. Your “caveats” were just to list two differing types of this faculty. However they are still this faculty, so were covered by my position from the start.

No, you extended rights to those who do not have this faculty and those who no longer posses it. Those are not "differing types of this faculty".

Whatever this faculty is, of course. Consciousness? Sentience? Conscience? You're pretty fuzzy on the definition and frankly there is little point in using "this faculty" as a measure when you cannot even define it.

Drkpower,

I am glad we got all the way to point 9 before you found something to disagree with. This means there is a lot less for us to work on than I thought.

The issue here is that everything we know about consciousness tells us that it does not and can not exists without any one of a number of elements. So to show the point is true that I am trying to make I can work with any one of these elements.

If you can find me any papers of peer review that suggest consciousness can exists independent of any electroencephalographic activity at all then I will be forced to re-evaluate my position immediately. However I have found none as yet and I have searched and read a lot more than most people. What I find instead is paper after paper supporting this notion.

In other words my position is entirely falsifiable. Science does not ever claim to be 100% right. It is an exercise in probabilities based on data. When all the data available tells us Consciousness can not exists without X, and not a scrap of data says it can… I am forced to go with the former. Maybe that is wrong and it can, but until there is a shred of a scrap of a reason to think so, I do not work with “maybes”.

Corinthian,

Yes I know you do not believe me. However you have not shown why. You have just told me you do not believe me. Fair enough, if you decide to take offence where none is intended then the only person with a problem is you.

Also the line:

you extended rights to those who do not have this faculty and those who no longer posses it.

Is entirely false. I do not think any entity who is completely devoid of this faculty has rights. So how could I be extending rights to such entities? If you can not even get this small part of my opinion correct I can see why you are unable to understand the rest of it.

Let me make this simple: I think we should assign rights to this faculty as a whole. Regardless of the current operational state of any one single example of it. When an entity has not attained, or entirely loses, this faculty, they also lose those rights.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Yes I know you do not believe me. However you have not shown why.

I have repeatedly shown where you have contradicted yourself. You have failed to address this preferring to simply stick with repeated denials.

Is entirely false. I do not think any entity who is completely devoid of this faculty has rights. So how could I be extending rights to such entities?

So someone who, through an accident, becomes severely mentally handicapped, should not posses these rights?

I am beginning to go crazy reading this. Nozzferrahhtoo has made it perfectly clear now that in his opinion, once this faculty is there, so are the rights, regardless what happens to the faculty henceforth until the death of the person in question. According to nozzferrahhtoo, research has shown that the faculty is not there until week 20. To be totally on the safe side, he would restrict abortions to up to 16 weeks. Seriously, what's not to get? Why do entirely irrelevant questions such "So someone who, through an accident, becomes severely mentally handicapped, should not posses these rights?" keep popping up when this question is actually answered? I mean, presumably, this someone who becomes severely mentally handicapped through an accident is past the 16 weeks nozzferrahhtoo has put down as the "deadline" (no pun intended) and has therefore had the faculty or parts of it?

I'm not saying I entirely agree with nozzferrahhtoo, but I can certainly see where he's coming from. It's actually quite easy to understand. I am not sure, but maybe his position is too logical for comfort to some posters who hold a different view and that is why they refuse to take in what he's saying...

metrovelvet

No. Nozzfer first said tge faculty of conciousness is what gives is rights. Then he said its not the faculty of conciousness which gives rights byt the faculty that generates the faculty of conciousness which does so. Then he switched it to sentience, then back to conciousness and then did a waltz over to conscience, without laying out any parameters for what any of them mean.

So I would gather that in Nozzy's book, someone with partial brain damage, whether through accident or whatever would not have the right go life. I hope he makes sure to tell his next of kin in case they are faced with such a choice. Yikes.

He might not have defined this faculty properly to your satisfaction, but that does not mean you can ignore the 16-week deadline around the argument of "once it's there (around 20 weeks), the rights are there and remain until death". I'm sorry, but you seem to willfully ignore that part, otherwise you would not reiterate the same argument. Attack his definition problem if that is what bothers you instead of jumping to such crass statements that, frankly, make no sense. When a time frame is quite clearly given, it is pointless to counter with arguments quite outside that time frame.

metrovelvet

So if you once had the faculty,whatever faculty he is talking about,your rights remain? Sounds like alumni privalege.

F.A. wrote: »

He might not have defined this faculty properly to your satisfaction,

The first problem is he has not defined this faculty properly to any reasonable level of satisfaction. He's repeatedly given us various philosophical terms, such as conscience, consciousness and sentience (all three are different things) and has failed to define from a practical perspective what it is exactly he is measuring. How can you genuinely judge if someone should or should not have rights if you cannot even define the criteria outside the vaguest of terms?

but that does not mean you can ignore the 16-week deadline around the argument of "once it's there (around 20 weeks), the rights are there and remain until death".

That's all very well, except he originally did not include this condition when he defined his position. Neither does it explain why those who never develop this faculty (severely mentally handicapped) are exempt.

When challenged on this he first denied it (claiming he had covered this) and then it became painfully obvious he had not, decided to change his tactics and claim that he simply had not said it because this discussion is an iterative process. Added to his attempt at 'helpful' condescension, it demonstrated a less than honest approach to discussion.

I'm sorry, but you seem to willfully ignore that part, otherwise you would not reiterate the same argument. Attack his definition problem if that is what bothers you instead of jumping to such crass statements that, frankly, make no sense. When a time frame is quite clearly given, it is pointless to counter with arguments quite outside that time frame.

I have wilfully reiterated a demand that he keep a consistent definition, all that I have ignored is when he as attempted to shift emphasis elsewhere, away from this glaring flaw. What you are now doing is, in effect, criticizing me because I am still looking "at the man behind the curtain".

Perhaps you can define this 'faculty' for us? At least then we could discuss it's merits rather than something that seems to change in every post.

drkpower

The Corinthian wrote: »

The first problem is he has not defined this faculty properly to any reasonable level of satisfaction.

He has also said that the key date is when 'the faculty begins to form', and that the issue is not whether the faculty exists, but if the the parts that create the faculty are present. He has also said that the thalamo-cortical complex is the faculty. Of course, the thalamo-cortical complex 'begins to form' at about 6-9 weeks when its constituent parts begin to form. And then he said that the only way you can determine if the faculty is present is through EEG (electrical) activity, when previously he had said that 'function is not important/relevent. But electrical activity only measures function, not the presence of anatomical structires; that is done by cadaver study, amongst other things. So it just isnt clear what his point is. And where he gets 20 weeks (minus 4 weeks) from.

Add to all this the fact that the journals he uses to back up whatever it is he believes, themselves state that this area of science is a 'complex puzzle' or words to that effect. Yet this science is supposedly going to be used to establish the legal status of life, perhaps the most fundamental issue facing humans.....?

The Corinthian wrote: »

That's all very well, except he originally did not include this condition when he defined his position.

How is that relevant? I have quite clearly stated that he has made it plain obvious NOW. I wasn't referring to his original post alone. When I discuss something with somebody and they are not quite clear, I allow them to become more specific. Why exactly are we not to extend this courtesy to nozz?

I have wilfully reiterated a demand that he keep a consistent definition, all that I have ignored is when he as attempted to shift emphasis elsewhere, away from this glaring flaw. What you are now doing is, in effect, criticizing me because I am still looking "at the man behind the curtain".

No, I am merely asking for people not to keep repeating mute points but to move on in this discussion by actually taking in what's long been answered.

Perhaps you can define this 'faculty' for us? At least then we could discuss it's merits rather than something that seems to change in every post.

I am no scientist, nor was I the one coming up with the concept of this faculty. I therefore fail to see how and why I should define it. I am following this discussion with interest and am open-minded. I think I also made it obvious that while I can see where nozz is coming from, I do not necessarily agree. I am interested in what both he and the other posters have to say on this, but I would quite like it to be a proper discussion that actually goes somewhere and isn't repeatedly interrupted by people willfully ignoring arguments and dully repeating nonsensical questions. This habit certainly doesn't strengthen their position.

F.A. wrote: »

How is that relevant? I have quite clearly stated that he has made it plain obvious NOW. I wasn't referring to his original post alone. When I discuss something with somebody and they are not quite clear, I allow them to become more specific.

There is nothing plain or obvious about his position. How long do you think we should be waiting for him to become specific? We've been waiting a few months, at this stage.

No, I am merely asking for people not to keep repeating mute points but to move on in this discussion by actually taking in what's long been answered.

What moot points? What was answered?

Asking how his position deals with the issue of those who never develop this faculty, such as severely mentally handicapped, is hardly a moot point, although I note that neither have you attempted to touch this.

I am no scientist, nor was I the one coming up with the concept of this faculty. I therefore fail to see how and why I should define it.

Yet, if it is "quite clearly stated" you should be able to repeat it without having to be either a scientist, or the one coming up with the concept of this faculty.

If you can't, it frankly could not have been so clear.

Erm, Corinthian, please do not start the same strategy with me. I have time and again referred to the 16-week deadline for abortion which you amongst others entirely ignore when coming up with counterarguments about people suffering mental damage in accidents. I refer you to my first post on the subject where I quoted you and showed how utterly pointless that question is.

As for me defining any faculty, no, I cannot do this nor am I willing to attempt to. As I've said, I am open to see where this goes, and a more refined definition is among the things I'm eager to hear from nozz. But how is he supposed to take posters seriously and go into more depth on that when he is constantly pestered with the same old nonsense questions? How is the discussion to go forward if you don't allow nozz to become specific?

So in answer to your questions:

What moot points?
"So I would gather that in Nozzy's book, someone with partial brain damage, whether through accident or whatever would not have the right go life. I hope he makes sure to tell his next of kin in case they are faced with such a choice. Yikes."

What was answered?
"So someone who, through an accident, becomes severely mentally handicapped, should not posses these rights?"
Nozz's answer being, as I have pointed out repeatedly at this stage: Of course they should possess these rights since they are past the 16 weeks in pregnancy!

So, again for you:
1) Nozz has CLEARLY stated that the rights REMAIN after the faculty is there - according to him, after 16 weeks. Anything to do with the time after these 16 weeks is therefore irrelevant, so please stop bringing it up. It makes you (as in whoever does bring it up) look silly.
2) This faculty is intriguing but not fully defined. As discussions go, people expect further specification.

If you honestly cannot see my point at this stage, then this discussion with you will never achieve much. I cannot make this any simpler and will not attempt to.

F.A. wrote: »

Erm, Corinthian, please do not start the same strategy with me. I have time and again referred to the 16-week deadline for abortion which you amongst others entirely ignore when coming up with counterarguments about people suffering mental damage in accidents.

But the discussion is not about a 16-week deadline, it is not about an arbitrary "congratz, you're 16-weeks old you get rights" - it is about criteria that are apparently met at this 16-week deadline - criteria that we still have not defined, BTW.

Focus on that, because the deadline is dependant on it, as are all the other supposed 'moot points'. How difficult is that to understand?

I refer you to my first post on the subject where I quoted you and showed how utterly pointless that question is.

No, you claimed it was utterly pointless, you didn't actually show anything.

As for me defining any faculty, no, I cannot do this nor am I willing to attempt to. As I've said, I am open to see where this goes, and a more refined definition is among the things I'm eager to hear from nozz.

A more refined definition is what we have all been eager to hear from nozz, because without it we actually cannot truly debate it. To date we have been repeatedly asking him for this and every time he claims to give us his definition he changes it the moment someone questions it.

That even you do not seem to be able to give such a definition is telling.

But how is he supposed to take posters seriously and go into more depth on that when he is constantly pestered with the same old nonsense questions? How is the discussion to go forward if you don't allow nozz to become specific?

We are not here to hear Nozz preach. We are hear to compare and test positions. So far Nozz has either not given his position or is continually changing it. How are the rest of us supposed to take that seriously?

What was answered?
"So someone who, through an accident, becomes severely mentally handicapped, should not posses these rights?"
Nozz's answer being, as I have pointed out repeatedly at this stage: Of course they should possess these rights since they are past the 16 weeks in pregnancy!

Absolutely, however he did not always say this - as per the post referenced earlier, only a week or so ago. He then added this caveat, and, tbh, I don't think I've mentioned it since outside of it being an example of his continued inconsistency.

1) Nozz has CLEARLY stated that the rights REMAIN after the faculty is there - according to him, after 16 weeks. Anything to do with the time after these 16 weeks is therefore irrelevant, so please stop bringing it up. It makes you (as in whoever does bring it up) look silly.

But that faculty does not always form after 16 weeks or ever, hence citing the severely mentally handicapped. This is hardly a moot point, as either one must make an exception for them or not ascribe them rights. Remember, the rights are ascribed to the faculty, not the deadline.

2) This faculty is intriguing but not fully defined. As discussions go, people expect further specification.

I accept this, and we are all waiting with bated breath. We have been for two months.

If you honestly cannot see my point at this stage, then this discussion with you will never achieve much. I cannot make this any simpler and will not attempt to.

I see your point, it just does not make much logical sense.

sold

Abortion is a sin, you are killing an innocent life. All the posts on sterilsing the poor, allowing the poor to have abortions as a means to stop crimes is the road for taking human out of Humanity. The person has an inherant dignaty that needs to respected. A person begins her/she life during the moment of conception and thus should be protected from conception. This is not my religous point of view, its my human point of view.

Zombrex

I would take a similar position to nozzferrahhtoo (though I've only briefly read this discussion so how similar it is I'm not exactly sure)

If we consider that the valuable part of human existence is the mind contained in the brain then it make perfect sense that until that has developed the human fetus does not possess the valuable part of human existence, and as such does not have rights as the rest of us.

The next question is how do you define exactly what is the valuable part, which seems to be where this discussion is running into trouble. And that is a very difficult question, and why I (as I think nozzferrahhtoo is saying) would air on the side of caution and reduce the age to when no higher brain functions are present in the fetus.

Zombrex

sold wrote: »

Abortion is a sin, you are killing an innocent life.

Aren't you killing an innocent life when you eat food, or blink your eyes?

I presume you hold that human life is more valuable.

The question then becomes why is human life more valuable than non-human life? Or why are some lives (humans, apes, dolphins, horses) more valuable than other lives (cows, fish, bacteria, lettuce)

Once it is established what properly these life forms have that makes them valuable you have to ask the question does the fetus have this properly and at what stage?

Does it gain this property before conception, after conception, after implantation, after the embryo forms, after birth?

If someone can do this I'll listen to their argument even if it is different to my position, but this nonsense that human life is valuable just because is pointless.