If it's not okay outside the womb, why is it okay INSIDE the womb?

[Inkfingers]

If there's no consciousness, there's no value.

So if I kill you when you sleep that would not be a crime?

There're no moral wrong in killing a tree because a tree is not a conscious entity.

Do you have evidence that a tree is not a conscious entity?

 

[Conscious Z]

So if I kill you when you sleep that would not be a crime?

You're making two errors here:
1. Consciousness has nothing to do with being awake, at least not in the sense in which I'm using it. I'm using it to mean phenomenal consciousness, or the fact that there is something it is like to be a given thing. There is nothing it is like to be a tree. There is something it is like to be a fish.

2. You used the word "crime." It may have been by mistake, but I wanted to clarify that we aren't talking about laws here. We are talking about ethics.

Do you have evidence that a tree is not a conscious entity?

Yes. Modern neuroscience has gone a long way to describe the minimum biological structures necessary for a thing to be conscious. There are a lot of details, but it's enough to say that a central nervous system is required. There is always some assumption that must be made in determining whether another being is conscious. That's true for humans as well. I assume that because you have similar neurological structures as I do, and you respond similarly to the same stimuli, that you are conscious. It's possible I'm wrong, but it seems like a warranted conclusion. So it goes for other species. When a cow has the same structures in its brain that are responsible for consciousness in humans, and it responds differently to pain stimuli when given painkillers than it does when it does not receive painkillers, then it seems warranted to conclude it is conscious. A tree does not have neurons or any sort of nervous system at all. Nothing in modern biology could account for how it is that a tree could possibly be conscious.

The tree was really just an example, however....but you knew that.

 

[Inkfingers]

You're making two errors here:
1. Consciousness has nothing to do with being awake, at least not in the sense in which I'm using it. I'm using it to mean phenomenal consciousness, or the fact that there is something it is like to be a given thing. There is nothing it is like to be a tree. There is something it is like to be a fish.

Sorry, but you said conscious and a sleeping person has no consciousness do they....ie: if you shoot them whilst they sleep they do not suffer, which is what you were speaking of when you say speak of something "doing the suffering".

2. You used the word "crime." It may have been by mistake, but I wanted to clarify that we aren't talking about laws here. We are talking about ethics.

You were saying that it was not wrong to kill a being that has no consciousness.

You are not conscious when you are asleep, so I was pointing out how by what you said you should have no objections to shooting sleeping people (as they are not conscious)

Yes. Modern neuroscience has gone a long way to describe the minimum biological structures necessary for a thing to be conscious.

Actually, neuroscience remains baffled by consciousness and there is no strong evidence that a tree is not conscious. It does, after all, respond to its environment.

I think you are being fluid in your use of the term 'conscious' in order to support your own view (that abortion is acceptable).

 

[Conscious Z]

Sorry, but you said conscious and a sleeping person has no consciousness do they....ie: if you shoot them whilst they sleep they do not suffer, which is what you were speaking of when you say speak of something "doing the suffering".

If we could hypothetically ensure that there was no suffering, and if we could hypothetically ensure that no other conscious beings would suffer because of my death (such as sorrow from friends and family), then no, there would be nothing wrong with it. It would still probably not be justifiable if you actually had no reason to do it because it's likely that my existence would bring more positive into the world than negative, but that isn't really a strong reason. To answer your question's intent, if the two above conditions were met, then the vast majority of the moral wrong that comes from killing would disappear.

You were saying that it was not wrong to kill a being that has no consciousness.

You are not conscious when you are asleep, so I was pointing out how by what you said you should have no objections to shooting sleeping people (as they are not conscious)

You gave this response to my point number two, which was only referring to your use of the word "crime." Crimes relate to the law, not morality. I was only pointing out that we aren't discussing whether the killing would be criminal or not.

Actually, neuroscience remains baffled by consciousness and there is no strong evidence that a tree is not conscious. It does, after all, respond to its environment.

I think you are being fluid in your use of the term 'conscious' in order to support your own view (that abortion is acceptable).

No, neuroscience is not "baffled by consciousness." There are tons of unanswered questions, but it's generally accepted that the claustrum is responsible for consciousness activation. All mammals have a claustrum, and strong arguments have been made that non-mammals such as fish have functionally equivalent structures.

Responding to one's environment, or nociception, is not sufficient for consciousness. My thermostat responds to its environment. Again, the tree was just an example, however. It isn't necessary for any part of my argument. If you don't like the tree example, imagine a car tire. I presume you don't think it's possible that car tires are conscious.

My definition of consciousness has been the same since the beginning. I am referring to the qualitative, subjective quality that exists when an organism has a capacity for experience. There is something it is like to be such an organism.

 

[TomZzyzx]

There is nothing special about being human. Human life isn't inherently valuable. It is valuable based on its features, not its status as human. Life of any kind is valuable only if it features a conscious, sentient creature. If there's no consciousness, there's no value. There're no moral wrong in killing a tree because a tree is not a conscious entity. There is moral wrong in killing a human or a cow or a dog because there is something "inside" that is doing the suffering. Fetuses are not conscious from the moment of conception. It is developed, and most likely develops gradually. Abortions that take place before the development of consciousness are not immoral because it is the killing of a being that is not conscious or sentient.

It has nothing to do with whether a fetus is defenseless or not. It has to do with whether it is conscious.

That's you opinion and your welcome to it.

Here is mine... human beings are intrinsically valuable in vertue of being human, not in vertue of some attribute they acquire at some point in time.

If the unborn develope consciousness at some point during the pregnancy then can you tell me exactly when that is?

 

[TomZzyzx]

There have been scientific studies done on if prayer works. The conclusion was it does not. So if you are going to argue that because science says something it must be right then you need to accept that they say your faith is wrong and a waste of time. Can't have it both ways.

I know that. You know that but you are the one who claimed scientific studies make something right.

Other views are things like what your claiming is biblical.

no that does not follow. That is not what the studies said. You are putting your own worldview into the conclusion. Yet the interesting thing is christians don't tend to get upset over life support being switched off. Fits all the same requirements for life that you listed.

What scientific studies on prayer are you talking about? Can you list them for me? Also the ones that say my faith is wrong.

When did I say any thing about scientific studies. I only spoke of scientific facts.

I don't remember claiming anything was biblical. Can you tell me when and where I said that?

Again, what studies are you talking about?

Your second to last statement is an outright lie. Christians are the only ones fighting to keep people on life support and atheist are fighting to shut them down.

 

[Conscious Z]

That's you opinion and your welcome to it.

Here is mine... human beings are intrinsically valuable in vertue of being human, not in vertue of some attribute they acquire at some point in time.

If the unborn develope consciousness at some point during the pregnancy then can you tell me exactly when that is?

So you're admitting that this is all just a matter of opinion? If so, then why do you claim abortion is absolutely wrong?

Regarding the development of consciousness, it is most likely somewhere between 20 and 24 weeks.

 

[TheDag]

So if I kill you when you sleep that would not be a crime?

you are not unconscious when asleep. I think you are choosing to be difficult here knowing full well what was meant. A simple definiton search will find there are several definitions that fit the way Conscious Z has claimed to be using it. To continue to claim otherwise after that has been explained lacks integrity.

A unconscious person can not be woken up by shaking. Perhaps talk to a neurologist. Saw a neurologist one time gently shaking a patient and yelling at them to hit him. on reporting this behaviour it was explained the patient was unconscious and they were desperately trying to get a reaction from the patient. Sadly there was no reaction.

 

[TheDag]

What scientific studies on prayer are you talking about? Can you list them for me? Also the ones that say my faith is wrong.

When did I say any thing about scientific studies. I only spoke of scientific facts.

Well how does something become scientific fact?

Your second to last statement is an outright lie. Christians are the only ones fighting to keep people on life support and atheist are fighting to shut them down.

No it is not. Yes some christians are against life support being turned off but many are not. And as I claimed there is not the same response by christians in general to life support being turned off as there is to abortion.

 

[TomZzyzx]

Well how does something become scientific fact?

No it is not. Yes some christians are against life support being turned off but many are not. And as I claimed there is not the same response by christians in general to life support being turned off as there is to abortion.

At least I was right, the unborn are alive and kicking.
I'm still waiting for your proof on those scientific studies.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Remember Terri Schiavo?

 

[TomZzyzx]

So you're admitting that this is all just a matter of opinion? If so, then why do you claim abortion is absolutely wrong?

Regarding the development of consciousness, it is most likely somewhere between 20 and 24 weeks.

The part that is not opinion and entirely fact is that the unborn are human beings and it is morally wrong to kill a human being without justificatin.

In your view abortion between 20 and 24 weeks could possibly kill a human person. So your against abortions performed after 20 weeks?

 

[TheDag]

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Remember Terri Schiavo?

you have once again failed to read what I said. I did not say no christian gets upset over it but there is nowhere near the same response generally from christians over life support being switched off as there is on abortion. It really shouldn't be that hard to understand. Christians have made the decision to turn off the life support of a family member even though they are against abortion. It really is much more of a grey area.

To be honest I couldn't be bothered looking it up. I have read about several which were blind studies. The best that can be said is one study said those who knew they were being prayed for had the worst results so if your praying for someone it is best not to let them know!

 

[TheDag]

The part that is not opinion and entirely fact is that the unborn are human beings and it is morally wrong to kill a human being without justificatin.

No that is your opinion and based solely on the opinion of when life begins.

 

[Conscious Z]

The part that is not opinion and entirely fact is that the unborn are human beings and it is morally wrong to kill a human being without justificatin.

Well, it being immoral to kill all humans at all times depends on the answer to the question of whether all humans at all times are conscious. If you think that answer is a matter of opinion, then it follows that the moral issue is also opinion because it depends on whether all humans are conscious at all times.

In your view abortion between 20 and 24 weeks could possibly kill a human person. So your against abortions performed after 20 weeks?

In most cases, yes. There is a moral calculus that must be done, but I at least think we have reason to be opposed to it after about 24 weeks. I think the scientific literature is probably putting the timeline closer to 24 than 20, but multiple state legislatures have been convinced otherwise.