Child sacrifice in America dealt with by heaven

[dad]

Well, if these neighbours are people, which presumably they are, we're not going to abort them.

Ah, so if they are your own size you won't try to bother or kill or sacrifice them. Ok. How about if they are severely handicapped, should they still feel safe from you?

 

[dad]

I already said that I do not believe being in a coma should invalidate personhood.

Well well well. there we have it. Now the target sight is on folks in a coma. So babies, and people in a coma...how about the handicapped?

 

[InterestedAtheist]

It puts a dent in your definition.

Really? I would be interested to hear why you think so.

Ah, so if they are your own size you won't try to bother or kill or sacrifice them. Ok. How about if they are severely handicapped, should they still feel safe from you?

I need to ask - are you actually reading what I write? I already said: if the definition of personhood is having the capacity for thought (as I believe it is, and as you have yet to disprove) then mentally handicapped people, stupid people, disabled people, sleeping people and comatose people all fall within the boundaries of personhood.
Trying to "gotcha" someone doesn't work if you pose a question they already answered.

Well well well. there we have it. Now the target sight is on folks in a coma. So babies, and people in a coma...how about the handicapped?

All fine. As I have said, but you seem not to have read.

Your invented terms for your victims have no value. Sorry.

I'm not surprised that you are unfamiliar with medical terminology.

God teaches us all the time and will continue to forever. Don't be sore that people don't want to learn fables and lies though.

As I said: if you never take the time to read and understand opposing viewpoints, you'll never learn anything.
Also, you make yourself look foolish, trying to argue against a person when you haven't read what they said.

I am saying whatever He does is way way way way beyond your ability to grasp. Including the most important component of what makes a person, the spirit.

Since this answer completely ignores my question, I shall ask it again:
"Are you saying he actively intervenes to make sure that each and every conception is the sperm he wishes meeting the egg he wishes? Is that what you're saying?"

Sounds like there are consequences even here.

Not surprising to learn that this is religious-right propaganda.
"Henshaw says Reardon and colleagues are intent on showing that abortion is linked to adverse psychological outcomes in large part to provide a legal foot in the door for overturning Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion.
"They are trying to make the argument that when the Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade they didn't know all of the harms that abortion would cause women," he tells WebMD. "They have published a dozen studies purporting to show that abortion is associated with negative mental health outcomes, including depression, anxiety and suicide. But if you read the fine print, all of them say that the link hasn't been proven.""

Don't read the news?
"Senate Democrats on Monday blocked a Republican bill that would have threatened prison time for doctors who don't try saving the life of infants born alive during failed abortions, leading conservatives to wonder openly whether Democrats were embracing "infanticide" to appeal to left-wing voters.

Well, you just proved my point. Abortion is enormously valuable to the right wing politicians and Christians, as it provides a great way of distracting people. This story, for example; first, such late term abortions are incredibly rare, and only happen for pressing medical reasons. Second, it's already illegal to commit infanticide; third, babies with severe disabilities - as in, would make their short lives a living hell - are occasionally born. and it's not that doctors are there to smother them with pillows; it's that the decision is made to let nature take its course, rather than prolonging the infant's agony.
Like many things Republicans and right-wing Christians say, this would be laughable if it wasn't so vindictive.

Apparently there is never a need to kill babies to save a woman either.

It's rare for this to happen, but quite real.
"The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists issued a statement saying: "Abortions are necessary in a number of circumstances to save the life of a woman or to preserve her health. Unfortunately, pregnancy is not a risk-free life event."

It is not up to me to decide penalties for murder.

Interesting way of dodging the issue. If a man cold-bloodedly hit his wife on the head repeatedly until she died, I'd say he's a murderer, under the law, and I dare say you would too. But although you're happy to call abortion murder, you know in your heart that women who have abortions are not murderers.

Again, stop calling your victims names.

Interesting projection. You're the one talking about murderers and demonocrats. I just said "a tiny piece of non-sentient matter". Do you dispute that a fetus is tiny and nonsentient? I doubt that you will bother to argue the point.

In your mind, maybe. You have no clue.

If you can't prove me wrong, I win.
I've stated my case for personhood. Show me where the mistake is, or else admit you can't.

Anyone who is against child sacrifice is now demonized also by you. OK.

"Child sacrifice" indeed! You just proved my point about how melodramatic right-winger anti-abortioners are.

Says you. Did I even mention that particular so called cause??
...
Says you. However most people who do not want children sacrificed and killed have nothing to do with politics I would guess.

I said you wouldn't believe it, but I felt it had to be said. Christians used to solidly support abortion, until the 1970s and 1980s, when they discovered that it was a great way of gaining political power. You made a bargain with the devil; you traded your ethics for worldly power.
Well, not you, dad. I'm not saying you actually made the political calculation. You're just one of the people that got duped.

How about stop pretending you know or that anyone cares what you believe it may be?

Oooh. Touchy. Remember, if you can't disprove the argument, you lose.

The brain is a tool that God gave humans to use. Some people don't have a very strong or good tool for whatever reasons right now in this sinful world. I have more problem with people with god brains using them for evil!

Totally ignores the point I made.

False. Of course it does. You thought children had to apply to you to see if their existence was valid??

You misread me. An honest mistake. You and I are in agreement on this one. Babies are persons. You just have to explain to me where the mistake in my personhood argument lies, pointing out the flaw in my logic.
If you can.

Yet we see that demonocrats and others push for later and later murder of children. Now we see they did not even want to protect babies after birth.

Oooh. Tell me again how it's naughty to call people names?

Their brain is a tool that starts to work in the proper time. Just as it ceases to work the same in later life in many cases! Those who have good brains should learn that they also need a heart!

Totally ignored what I said.

So, dad, let me lay it on the line for you. I've posted my reasons why abortion is not immoral. I've laid down a challenge to you. If you can't rebut the argument, pointing out the logical error in it, you lose.

 

[Selene03]

Really? I would be interested to hear why you think so.

A person who is "brain-dead" is brain-dead. But a person in a coma, which is technically a "brain failure", is considered legally alive. A person in a vegetative state is also legally and medically alive although he/she may never recover. A working brain doesn't mean that one can think and act rationally. Some may even claim that the brain of those in a coma and vegetative state are alive but not working rationally nor are these people living in that they are incapable of relating socially.

You also stated (the bold is mine): "A baby does qualify as a person before it is born, as the brain is developed and active. However, that is no problem, as abortions are not performed during this time. All abortions (with exceptions for emergencies, such as when the baby is crippled to such a point that life would be a living hell for them) take place long before the baby's brain has begun to work, or is even present."
6. Therefore, abortions are not murder. They are the aborting (stopping development) of a potential human person, yes, but not yet a person.

According to medical science in fetal development (the bold is mine):
The basic anatomical organization of the human nervous system is established by 6 weeks .[1] The earliest neurons in the cortical brain (the part responsible for thinking, memory, and other higher functions) are established starting at 6 weeks .[2] Nerve synapses for spinal reflex are in place by 10 weeks.

And according to abortion statistics reported in CNN news:
91.1% of 2015 abortions were performed at, or before, the 13th week of gestation and 65% were performed at the eighth week or earlier.

Furthermore, abortion is used as a birth control method, and it benefits men rather than women. According to a study done by the Guttmacher Institute on the reasons why women have an abortion:

74% of women say a child would dramatically change their life in this way:
38% say a child would interfere with their education
38% say a child would interfere with their job
32% say they have other dependents

73% of women say they can’t afford a baby right now because:
42% say because they are unmarried
34% say because they are a student or are planning to study
28% say they can’t afford a baby and child care
23% say they can’t afford the basic needs of life
22% say because they are unemployed

48% of women who say they don’t want to be a single mom or are having relationship problems in this way:
19% say they are unsure about their relationship
11% say relationship may break up or end soon

38% of women say they have decided they’ve completed their childbearing years

32% say they are not ready for another child

25% say they do not want people to know they had sex or got pregnant

14% husband wanted her to have an abortion

6% say parents wanted her to have an abortion

12% say possible problems with their health

1% of women said they were aborting because they were raped

Less than .05% of women gave the reason because of incest

Personhood is a moral concept. A person is someone who matters in his or her own right, and who therefore deserves our highest moral consideration. Thus, the brain-dead person and even the dead body of a person is treated with high respect. That brain-dead person or dead body was once a father/mother, brother/sister, son/daughter, etc. And this is why Christians bury the dead with respect. And the fetus at 1 week old is also a person in his or her own right and who deserves the highest respect rather than to be used as a birth control method.

 

[dad]

.. if the definition of personhood is having the capacity for thought (as I believe it is, and as you have yet to disprove) then mentally handicapped people, stupid people, disabled people, sleeping people and comatose people all fall within the boundaries of personhood.

Great,, so babies not yet born are fair game to you, and those in a coma, but you would spare mentally challenged folks. Fine. I have heard of some people who think that handicapped infants should not be allowed to be born, it was important to draw out your position.

I'm not surprised that you are unfamiliar with medical terminology.

When it comes to terms referring to unborn babies, I purposely disrespect their terms by not even honoring them with recognition.

"Are you saying he actively intervenes to make sure that each and every conception is the sperm he wishes meeting the egg he wishes? Is that what you're saying?"

A lot more than that. He knows what parents and grandparents a child should end up with. He knows what the baby will be like and what situation it is going to. He puts the life into the person. Etc.

Not surprising to learn that this is religious-right propaganda.
"Henshaw says Reardon and colleagues are intent on showing that abortion is linked to adverse psychological outcomes in large part to provide a legal foot in the door for overturning Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion.
"They are trying to make the argument that when the Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade they didn't know all of the harms that abortion would cause women," he tells WebMD. "They have published a dozen studies purporting to show that abortion is associated with negative mental health outcomes, including depression, anxiety and suicide. But if you read the fine print, all of them say that the link hasn't been proven.""

Wave off the higher suicide rate if you like. Then there is the sorrow regret and etc in many cases. So in the child sacrifice, if it is twins, you have three people going into the murder chamber operating room, and at best only one coming out alive! Then that person is at risk of depression and even suicide.

Well, you just proved my point. Abortion is enormously valuable to the right wing politicians and Christians, as it provides a great way of distracting people. This story, for example; first, such late term abortions are incredibly rare, and only happen for pressing medical reasons

Doesn't matter at all how rare they are now. They used to not exist. The trend is later and later murders, and a lot of talk about old folks and terminally ill, and severely handicapped etc...getting whacked also.

. Second, it's already illegal to commit infanticide

Yet if a baby was stabbed in the womb in some laces, it may not even be considered a person. Then you have those who advocate not bothering to try and save the life of babies.

; third, babies with severe disabilities - as in, would make their short lives a living hell - are occasionally born. and it's not that doctors are there to smother them with pillows; it's that the decision is made to let nature take its course, rather than prolonging the infant's agony.

Man playing god basically. 'Oh that child would not probably have a great life, we recommend you kill it'.

It's rare for this to happen, but quite real.
"The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists issued a statement saying: "Abortions are necessary in a number of circumstances to save the life of a woman or to preserve her health. Unfortunately, pregnancy is not a risk-free life event."

Yet the over 1000 professionals in the article I cited say it is not true at all. Ever. Let's ask you another question. Even if say, it was true in a situation, do you think it is wrong to always try to save the life of the child if possible?

Interesting way of dodging the issue. If a man cold-bloodedly hit his wife on the head repeatedly until she died, I'd say he's a murderer, under the law, and I dare say you would too. But although you're happy to call abortion murder, you know in your heart that women who have abortions are not murderers.

It is murder. Sacrificing the child's life for whatever reason the woman chooses. Freedom to murder. Freedom of choice only for murderers. Some freedom.

Interesting projection. You're the one talking about murderers and demonocrats. I just said "a tiny piece of non-sentient matter". Do you dispute that a fetus is tiny and nonsentient? I doubt that you will bother to argue the point.

I would disagree that a child sent by the hand of God and endowed with life itself from the Almighty should be called 'nonsentinent'! God sent it! God knows about it! The mom knows about it! The baby is not designed to be some rocket scientist at that stage of life. People are designed to care for babies at that stage of life and by murdering the child they are in gross dereliction of duty.

If you can't prove me wrong, I win.
I've stated my case for personhood. Show me where the mistake is, or else admit you can't.

God made people and sends babies, that is what a person is all about. Your godless arbitrary two bit definitions have zero merit.

"Child sacrifice" indeed! You just proved my point about how melodramatic right-winger anti-abortioners are.

It is not a matter of left and right. It is a matter of people with seared and callous consciousnesses destroying innocent young people ritualistically and fanatically and demonically, and normal natural humans that have not rejected the Spirit of God Himself.

I said you wouldn't believe it, but I felt it had to be said. Christians used to solidly support abortion, until the 1970s and 1980s, when they discovered that it was a great way of gaining political power. You made a bargain with the devil; you traded your ethics for worldly power.
Well, not you, dad. I'm not saying you actually made the political calculation. You're just one of the people that got duped.

If folks were duped for awhile and come to their senses that is one thing. The Prodigal son did that too. It is another matter to have given over to the dark side.

You misread me. An honest mistake. You and I are in agreement on this one. Babies are persons. You just have to explain to me where the mistake in my personhood argument lies, pointing out the flaw in my logic.
If you can.

Life is not a matter of the brain. It is a matter of divine appointment.


Oooh. Tell me again how it's naughty to call people names?

 

[InterestedAtheist]

A person who is "brain-dead" is brain-dead. But a person in a coma, which is technically a "brain failure", is considered legally alive. A person in a vegetative state is also legally and medically alive although he/she may never recover. A working brain doesn't mean that one can think and act rationally. Some may even claim that the brain of those in a coma and vegetative state are alive but not working rationally nor are they living in that they are incapable of relating socially.

All of this is true, of course; but none of it affects the argument. There are certainly many shades of "being alive", but no matter how low the activity, there is still a difference between a person with the capacity for thought, and a person without, a potential person whose brain has not yet been brought into existence.
At this point, I would like to ask you: do you accept that the capacity for thought is a reasonable criteria for personhood?
Let me propose two hypotheticals to illustrate this:
First, supposing it was possible to transplant a brain into another body, so brain could walk and talk and say, "Wow, look, everything's new!"
Supposing the original body was then somehow destroyed. Would the person be dead? Or would they say, "Wait, I'm not dead! I'm still here!" in their new body?
Second, take the case of a person who is actually brain-dead, but the body is still living, supported by machines. Imagine, hypothetically, that a terrible disease has actually destroyed their brain, but science is capable of keeping the rest of their body going. Would you say the person is still alive, just because their heart beats and the lungs draw breath?
The point being, personhood resides in your thinking. Without our brains, we are just lumps of meat; and without a brain, a fetus is just a lump of meat.

According to medical science in fetal development (the bold is mine):
The basic anatomical organization of the human nervous system is established by 6 weeks .[1] The earliest neurons in the cortical brain (the part responsible for thinking, memory, and other higher functions) are established starting at 6 weeks .[2] Nerve synapses for spinal reflex are in place by 10 weeks.
...
And according to abortion statistics reported in CNN news:
91.1% of 2015 abortions were performed at, or before, the 13th week of gestation and 65% were performed at the eighth week or earlier.

I wouldn't mind debating that with you, at another time. I'd be happy to point out that the human brain develops very slowly, and although its structures begin to appear relatively early, they are not actually active until quite late - well past the point when abortions typically take place.
But, with your permission, I'd like to leave that argument for another time, and instead ask you this: would you then accept that an abortion before six weeks, when the brain is not present, is acceptable? If not, then let's focus on the actual argument at hand.

Furthermore, abortion is used as a birth control method, and it benefits men rather than women. According to a study done by the Guttmacher Institute on the reasons why women have an abortion

That's very interesting, but doesn't seem to have anything to do with our current debate. Remember, I think - and have argued - that the fetus is not yet a person, just a lump of flesh. Therefore, the question of why the abortion happened is not relevant to our present discussion.

Personhood is a moral concept. A person is someone who matters in his or her own right, and who therefore deserves our highest moral consideration. Thus, the brain-dead person and even the dead body of a person is treated with high respect. That brain-dead person or dead body was once a father/mother, brother/sister, son/daughter, etc. And this is why Christians bury the dead with respect.

I think it was interesting the way you said "the dead body of a person". Because that is my view. The dead body once owned by a person. And really, that's the Christian view too, isn't it? The soul that inhabited that body has gone on, either to heaven or to hell, and left their body behind them. Right?
And yes, I would certainly say that we should treat what they have left with respect, and bury it with honour; rituals to honour the memories, and the love and the happiness and the meaning that existed between us when the person was there, inside the body.
We certainly honour that relationship and treat the dead body with respect. But we do not treat the dead body as a person - we don't talk to it and expect it to talk back; we don't keep it around us; we don't worry about its decomposition. We know that the person has gone, and we honour our memory of them, and we bury them.

And the fetus at 1 week old is also a person in his or her own right and who deserves the highest respect rather than to be used as a birth control method.

If you think that a 1-week old fetus (to be precise, an embryo, isn't it?) is a person, then we have to return to our earlier cases. If there was a person on life support whose brain was clinically dead, I would have no hesitation in having them taken off life support. To leave them on life support would be an insult to the person who once lived, a grisly reanimating of their essentially dead body. This is because, without their brain, no person exists. Wouldn't you agree? Or would you keep a brainless body kept alive by machines for months, years, decades?
It is the same with a fetus, or embryo, or blastocyte; they are potential persons, but not persons; they are just lumps of flesh - as human as an appendix, and as alive, and just as much a person.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Great, so babies not yet born are fair game to you, and those in a coma, but you would spare mentally challenged folks. Fine. I have heard of some people who think that handicapped infants should not be allowed to be born, it was important to draw out your position.

You are repeatedly misreading what I say, and misstating my position. I actually said that people in a coma were not "fair game".

When it comes to terms referring to unborn babies, I purposely disrespect their terms by not even honoring them with recognition.

Your deliberate ignorance is not my problem.

A lot more than that. He knows what parents and grandparents a child should end up with. He knows what the baby will be like and what situation it is going to. He puts the life into the person. Etc.

Okay. Interesting. So you're positing that God takes an active role, deliberately choosing to make bodies which He knows are going to be aborted.
In any case, as I'm not a Christian and don't believe in God, this line of argument is a dead end for you. What you're going to have to do is convince me that a fetus, or earlier stage of development, is a person. And to do that, you're going to have to address my argument and explain any mistakes in it.
Which I think you can't.

Wave off the higher suicide rate if you like. Then there is the sorrow regret and etc in many cases. So in the child sacrifice, if it is twins, you have three people going into the murder chamber operating room, and at best only one coming out alive! Then that person is at risk of depression and even suicide.

I already explained that there is no convincing scientific evidence - something that you apparently only care about if it furthers your case - that abortions lead to suicide or depression.

Doesn't matter at all how rare they are now. They used to not exist. The trend is later and later murders, and a lot of talk about old folks and terminally ill, and severely handicapped etc...getting whacked also.

Not much to say here, except that you obviously watch too much Fox News. If you get lied to all the time, its not surprising your views about reality are ridiculous.

Man playing god basically. 'Oh that child would not probably have a great life, we recommend you kill it'.

Of course, no doctor ever has ever said that. The very, very few cases of late term abortion are because there was either a threat to the mother's life, or because it was discovered that the baby would spend the entirety of its short life in a living hell.

Yet the over 1000 professionals in the article I cited say it is not true at all. Ever.

I have considerable reservations about opinions and statistics picked from anti-abortion sources. Common sense says that since childbirth itself is an inherently dangerous activity, even today, there will of course be cases where an abortion is necessary to avoid the death of the mother. I'd also like to point out that the death of the mother almost always means the death of the child. Take the well-known case of Savita Halappannavar, for example. If you're not familiar with it, what happened was this: something went wrong with her pregnancy. The fetus's death was inevitable, but the mother's life could have been saved, if an abortion had been carried out. She, in terrible pain, begged for an operation, and so did her husband, but her request was refused. The fetus died, and so did she, in terrible pain. The baby was already doomed, tragically, but an abortion could have saved her life. Do you see?

Let's ask you another question. Even if say, it was true in a situation, do you think it is wrong to always try to save the life of the child if possible?

No, I don't. I do think you should try to save the life of the child, if possible. But it isn't usually possible. Again, what is your opinion on Savita Halappanavar?

It is murder. Sacrificing the child's life for whatever reason the woman chooses. Freedom to murder. Freedom of choice only for murderers. Some freedom.

When you say things like this, the only possible response is to just roll my eyes. You are living in a cartoonish fantasy of a world.

I would disagree that a child sent by the hand of God and endowed with life itself from the Almighty should be called 'nonsentient'! God sent it! God knows about it! The mom knows about it! The baby is not designed to be some rocket scientist at that stage of life. People are designed to care for babies at that stage of life and by murdering the child they are in gross dereliction of duty.

Apparently you don't understand the word "sentient" either.

God made people and sends babies, that is what a person is all about. Your godless arbitrary two bit definitions have zero merit.

Actually, they have quite a lot of merit. They have merit in that, after many pages of blustering, threatening and calling down divine wrath, you haven't managed to disprove them.

It is not a matter of left and right. It is a matter of people with seared and callous consciousnesses destroying innocent young people ritualistically and fanatically and demonically, and normal natural humans that have not rejected the Spirit of God Himself.

You realise, when you start losing an argument you begin frothing at the mouth, don't you?

If folks were duped for awhile and come to their senses that is one thing. The Prodigal son did that too. It is another matter to have given over to the dark side.

There is no evil that the Christian right-wing would not accept, so long as it could pass anti-abortion laws. There is nothing so low they would not stoop to it. We've seen that, over the last two years of Trump's presidency. Grifter, con man, liar, sexual predator - it's all fine with the right-wing Christians, who voted for him more than they voted for Bush or McCain - as long as he supports anti-abortion laws and judges.
That is what a bargain with the devil involves. Ironic, isn't it?

Life is not a matter of the brain. It is a matter of divine appointment.

but I'm not talking about life. Your heart is a living muscle. Your appendix is a living organ. Neither of them is a person, though, is it?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

When you say things like this, the only possible response is to just roll my eyes. You are living in a cartoonish fantasy of a world.

I’m always amazed at people who engage in conversation with someone on the other side of an issue, only to have them use such ridiculous hyperbole that they short circuit the conversation by putting off the other person.

And then, even after being told that what they’re doing is hurting their cause rather than helping it, they double down on the behavior.

It’s like getting your car stuck in the mud and insisting on reving the engine, making the car even more stuck, instead of taking actual steps to get out of the mud.

But I shouldn’t complain, since I can point people on the fence to these kinds of threads and show them that reasoned arguments from pro choice people aren’t being met in kind, but with fallacious, emotional, knee-jerk reactions. I’ve convinced a lot of people over the years to change their position by using the same arguments you are.

 

[dad]

You are repeatedly misreading what I say, and misstating my position. I actually said that people in a coma were not "fair game".

OK, sorry, I misunderstood your statement. By the way would you agree with the 1000 professionals that advocate trying to save the life of babies if possible in the rare instances mother's lives are in danger? Also, would you agree that once a child is born, they must try to save it's life?

Okay. Interesting. So you're positing that God takes an active role, deliberately choosing to make bodies which He knows are going to be aborted.

People who murder babies are part of the reality of a fallen sinful depraved world. God has a time when He will stop it all. Until then, He generally doesn't seem to directly overrule man unless it is a matter of a danger to the plan of salvation, best I can tell. For example, Sodom was so corrupt and evil and such a bad influence, like a cancer, that the evil would have spread too quickly I would guess. So He had to have an operation with special forces to remove it. The idea was not that the flood or the judgment of Sodom would make the world sinless. I suspect the idea was to limit the evil in order to allow His people and plan to have time to work.

In any case, as I'm not a Christian and don't believe in God, this line of argument is a dead end for you. What you're going to have to do is convince me that a fetus, or earlier stage of development, is a person. And to do that, you're going to have to address my argument and explain any mistakes in it.

I cannot bestow an ability to see the spiritual part of reality and life unto others. That would take God, and accepting Him and repenting and asking for forgiveness and help. Being born again, in order to start to be able to see. About all I can do is warn people that God does really love the babies and will avenge their blood. The wicked will still be here when He returns so no one is going to talk them all out of getting more and more wicked. Not even angels or special ops prophets who will have power over nature in the time just before Jesus returns. If the waters turn to blood, they will not repent. If they get no rain, or if they have their crops ruined...etc etc etc. Jesus will have to come back to town to do the job Himself.

I already explained that there is no convincing scientific evidence - something that you apparently only care about if it furthers your case - that abortions lead to suicide or depression.

Canard. Science as you know, cannot and does not deal with the spiritual in any way. It is powerless, clueless, inept, in the dark, and blind and deaf to anything spiritual. To ask for 'scientific' evidence regarding what life is all about or for things spiritual is foolishness!

Not much to say here, except that you obviously watch too much Fox News. If you get lied to all the time, its not surprising your views about reality are ridiculous.

The simple question remains. Do some people advocate NOT saving the life of babies even once born or not?

Of course, no doctor ever has ever said that. The very, very few cases of late term abortion are because there was either a threat to the mother's life, or because it was discovered that the baby would spend the entirety of its short life in a living hell.

In the cases where medical intervention supposedly had to be performed, was every effort made to try and save the child if possible?

I have considerable reservations about opinions and statistics picked from anti-abortion sources. Common sense says that since childbirth itself is an inherently dangerous activity, even today, there will of course be cases where an abortion is necessary to avoid the death of the mother. I'd also like to point out that the death of the mother almost always means the death of the child. Take the well-known case of Savita Halappannavar, for example. If you're not familiar with it, what happened was this: something went wrong with her pregnancy. The fetus's death was inevitable, but the mother's life could have been saved, if an abortion had been carried out. She, in terrible pain, begged for an operation, and so did her husband, but her request was refused. The fetus died, and so did she, in terrible pain. The baby was already doomed, tragically, but an abortion could have saved her life. Do you see?

It seems there was already a miscarriage in that case. So wouldn't that mean nature already decided? I would probably lean towards trying to save both the baby and the mom if possible. Not sure if there was even a baby left to try to save in this case?

Apparently you don't understand the word "sentient" either.

If John the Baptist was now aware of himself and the child in the womb nearby, Jesus, how would he have jumped for joy? Just because science is not aware that John was aware does not mean anything except that science is not aware!

There is no evil that the Christian right-wing would not accept, so long as it could pass anti-abortion laws.

The right wing seems to share the left wing warmongering disease. It is not a matter of one side in the US being angels. The overt anti Christian leadership of democrats in this last decade when they were in the white house (and even now in the house) does speak loudly though. I am not sure there is any salvation for that nation, and suspect that the recent small signs of life in some limited areas by the Trump admin may just be a temporary partial respite in the court before judgment from God comes.

There is nothing so low they would not stoop to it. We've seen that, over the last two years of Trump's presidency. Grifter, con man, liar, sexual predator - it's all fine with the right-wing Christians, who voted for him more than they voted for Bush or McCain - as long as he supports anti-abortion laws and judges.

I don't know if the talk is true or not. I did notice that Trump doesn't seem to have to send a team to take down or cover crosses before speaking, and has allowed a nativity scene, I heard in the white house, and has sided a little bit with the pro life side (God's side) etc. In other words he does not seem to me to be openly anti Christ! But I doubt he is some angel either, and it looks like he supports war to a large degree and many things that could weigh the balances against the hopes of seeing a truly repented USA!

That is what a bargain with the devil involves. Ironic, isn't it?

God even uses the devil when needed.

but I'm not talking about life. Your heart is a living muscle. Your appendix is a living organ. Neither of them is a person, though, is it?

The bible says something about the life of man being in the blood. Does a fetus have blood?

 

[Selene03]

All of this is true, of course; but none of it affects the argument. There are certainly many shades of "being alive", but no matter how low the activity, there is still a difference between a person with the capacity for thought, and a person without, a potential person whose brain has not yet been brought into existence.
At this point, I would like to ask you: do you accept that the capacity for thought is a reasonable criteria for personhood?

You ask if the capacity for thought is a reasonable criteria for personhood. The answer is no. Your criteria is faulty. New born babies and infants don't have the capacity for thought, but they are persons. Cognitive thinking in an infant doesn't develop until much later as they grow older into childhood. Once a person is defined in terms of thinking (as you claimed), then zygotes, fetuses and even normal newborns are no longer fully persons. So, what are they, then? Are they merely members of a biological species, human being. This not only justifies abortion, but also infanticide.

The point being, personhood resides in your thinking. Without our brains, we are just lumps of meat; and without a brain, a fetus is just a lump of meat.

On the contrary. As I pointed out babies and infants don't have cognitive thinking nor can they form words, but they are not a lump of meat. There are also people who are mentally incompetent and unable to make rational decisions, but they are persons. If personhood resides in "thinking" as you claimed, then infants and those mentally unstable and incompetent can be killed because they are not viewed as persons in their own right.

If you think that a 1-week old fetus (to be precise, an embryo, isn't it?) is a person, then we have to return to our earlier cases. If there was a person on life support whose brain was clinically dead, I would have no hesitation in having them taken off life support. To leave them on life support would be an insult to the person who once lived, a grisly reanimating of their essentially dead body. This is because, without their brain, no person exists. Wouldn't you agree? Or would you keep a brainless body kept alive by machines for months, years, decades?
It is the same with a fetus, or embryo, or blastocyte; they are potential persons, but not persons; they are just lumps of flesh - as human as an appendix, and as alive, and just as much a person.

It is true that a zygote has no brain, but it does have what will grow into a brain, just as an infant does not have speech but has what will grow into speech. Within the zygote is an already fully programmed individuality, from sex and aging to eye color. In other words, the personhood of the person is already there.

You claimed that the fetus or embryo is not a person, but are potential persons. If the fetus is only a potential person as you claimed, then it must be an actual something in order to be a potential person. So, what is that actual something? Certainly, not an ape. There are no potential persons any more than there are potential apes. All persons are actual, as all apes are actual. Actual apes are potential swimmers, and actual persons are potential philosophers. The being is actual, the functioning is potential.

Science says that human life begins at conception. According to the American College of Pediatricans:

"An organism is defined as "(1) a complex structure of interdependence and subordinate elements whose relations and properties are largely determined by their function in the whole, and (2) an individual constituted to carry on the activities of life by means of organs separate in function but mutually dependent: a living being."

It is clear that from the time of cell fusion, the embryo consists of elements (from both maternal and paternal origin) which function interdependently in a coordinated manner to carry on the function of the development of the human organism. From this definition, the single-celled embryo is not just a cell, but an organism, a living being, a human being.

Conception is the break, the clear dividing line, and the only one. I am the same being from conception on. Otherwise we would not speak of the growth and development and unfolding of that being, of me. I was once a teenager, I was once an infant. I was once in my mothers womb. My functioning develops only gradually, but my me has a sudden beginning, which is at conception.

Human life begins at conception and ends with death. Clinical death and bodily death are defined by the scientists and doctors. We leave it up to them. Because scientists and doctors have already defined a brain-dead person as clinically dead, then they are dead. They are not persons. You and I are in agreement with this. You and I are also in agreement with giving respect and honor to the dead because they were once persons. However, that is not so with those who are in a coma or vegetative state. Science declare these persons medically alive despite that they are incapable of having any rational thoughts and unable to function socially.

I overlooked one of your questions by accident. You stated: But, with your permission, I'd like to leave that argument for another time, and instead ask you this: would you then accept that an abortion before six weeks, when the brain is not present, is acceptable?

I am against abortion except in those rare cases when it endangers the life of the mother. The goal of medicine is to save a life. If both lives can be saved, the better. If not, then better that one life be saved if possible.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

I’m always amazed at people who engage in conversation with someone on the other side of an issue, only to have them use such ridiculous hyperbole that they short circuit the conversation by putting off the other person.

And then, even after being told that what they’re doing is hurting their cause rather than helping it, they double down on the behavior.

It’s like getting your car stuck in the mud and insisting on reving the engine, making the car even more stuck, instead of taking actual steps to get out of the mud.

But I shouldn’t complain, since I can point people on the fence to these kinds of threads and show them that reasoned arguments from pro choice people aren’t being met in kind, but with fallacious, emotional, knee-jerk reactions. I’ve convinced a lot of people over the years to change their position by using the same arguments you are.

Thanks, Todd. Good points!
Well, you can see from dad's Opening Post, we have a rather different point of view from him, and I'm afraid he seems rather insulated - you might say, religiously inoculated - against changing his mind. Still, this conversation might be useful in some ways.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

OK, sorry, I misunderstood your statement. By the way would you agree with the 1000 professionals that advocate trying to save the life of babies if possible in the rare instances mother's lives are in danger? Also, would you agree that once a child is born, they must try to save it's life?

That's fair enough, then.
I think some context is useful here. If a late-term abortion is taking place, it is certainly because there is some terrible danger that must be averted. There are some cases where the terrible decision must be made to have an abortion for the infant's own sake. It is absolutely not the case that a woman says "I've been pregnant for nine months now, but I've changed my mind; I'd like an abortion." Nor is it the case that a doctor says "Your infant might be prone to a disease. Better kill her rather than risk it."
The scenario is more like this: I Had a Late-Term Abortion. President Trump and Pro-Lifers Have No Right to Call Me a Murderer.
"The early diagnosis—lissencephaly is sometimes not diagnosed until after birth—meant her case was severe and her prognosis was grim: We could expect her to live for two to six years while suffering from frequent respiratory infections and intermittently choking on her own saliva. Her cognitive development would be arrested or even reversed by painful seizures. She might have been able to smile socially and/or track motion with her eyes, but maybe not. Eventually, one of the bouts of pneumonia or choking episodes or complications from one of the surgeries needed to sustain basic life functions would have killed her."
This is a real story about a real person who made a difficult decision out of love. She chose to have a late-term abortion to save her child from a living hell.
To answer your question, then: in cases such as these, if the abortion fails, then I do think the surgeons are justified in not taking steps to preserve the life of a child who might die of natural causes. But it's a terrible decision, a case in which there are no real right decisions, just different shadings of horrible ones. Having an abortion, to save the infant suffering, is the least worse scenario.
Seen against this backdrop, talk of "child killers" is insulting and irresponsible.

I cannot bestow an ability to see the spiritual part of reality and life unto others. That would take God, and accepting Him and repenting and asking for forgiveness and help. Being born again, in order to start to be able to see. About all I can do is warn people that God does really love the babies and will avenge their blood. The wicked will still be here when He returns so no one is going to talk them all out of getting more and more wicked. Not even angels or special ops prophets who will have power over nature in the time just before Jesus returns. If the waters turn to blood, they will not repent. If they get no rain, or if they have their crops ruined...etc etc etc. Jesus will have to come back to town to do the job Himself.

We're trying to have a discussion about medical ethics. Please don't waste time indulging in sermons and rhetoric.

Canard. Science as you know, cannot and does not deal with the spiritual in any way. It is powerless, clueless, inept, in the dark, and blind and deaf to anything spiritual. To ask for 'scientific' evidence regarding what life is all about or for things spiritual is foolishness!

False argument. It is perfectly possible to look for evidence of whether or not abortions make people depressed or suicidal, and the evidence is that they do not.

The simple question remains. Do some people advocate NOT saving the life of babies even once born or not?

Yes - and, under these terrible circumstances, rightly so.

In the cases where medical intervention supposedly had to be performed, was every effort made to try and save the child if possible?

If you look back at the case of Savita Halappanavar, you will see that in this case, the circumstances trapped everyone in a horrible choice. The baby was incapable of surviving outside the womb. It was dying, and it was impossible to save it. And it was killing Savita, in terrible pain. An abortion would have saved the mother's life. But the doctors refused to perform the abortion, because the fetus was still alive. By the time it had died, it was too late to save the mother.
And this is the problem that anti-abortion laws and ideas cause - cases like these, where a woman's life is threatened. An abortion would have saved her life.
And that is the answer to your question: in some cases, it is not possible to try to save the child; in this case, it was the child itself that was killing the mother.

It seems there was already a miscarriage in that case. So wouldn't that mean nature already decided? I would probably lean towards trying to save both the baby and the mom if possible. Not sure if there was even a baby left to try to save in this case?

I would also lean towards trying to save the baby and the mother in this case, of course, if it were possible. But it was not, and the doctors were clear: abortion was wrong.
So mother and baby both died.

If John the Baptist was now aware of himself and the child in the womb nearby, Jesus, how would he have jumped for joy? Just because science is not aware that John was aware does not mean anything except that science is not aware!

If this did happen, which I doubt, then it was merely God performing a miracle. God, if He wanted, could make John the Baptists write a book inside his mother's womb. Science, however, is perfectly clear. Fetuses before the age of abortion do not think or feel or be aware.

I don't know if the talk is true or not. I did notice that Trump doesn't seem to have to send a team to take down or cover crosses before speaking, and has allowed a nativity scene, I heard in the white house, and has sided a little bit with the pro life side (God's side) etc. In other words he does not seem to me to be openly anti Christ! But I doubt he is some angel either, and it looks like he supports war to a large degree and many things that could weigh the balances against the hopes of seeing a truly repented USA!

Well, there is some hope there. Let's agree, then, that Trump is not a good man; and the Christian right is firmly united behind him. Ergo, it stands: in order to get abortion laws passed, Christians have made a deal with the devil.

God even uses the devil when needed.

Maybe he does. But people aren't God, and when they make deals with the devil, it rarely works out well for them. The evangelical right has surrendered any claim to morality by embracing, enthusiastically embracing, a completely amoral figure.

The bible says something about the life of man being in the blood. Does a fetus have blood?

Why would you ask this? I'm not convinced by "The Bible says" and if I say that abortions often occur before a fetus has blood, then I very much doubt that will change your mind.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

You ask if the capacity for thought is a reasonable criteria for personhood. The answer is no. Your criteria is faulty. New born babies and infants don't have the capacity for thought, but they are persons. Cognitive thinking in an infant doesn't develop until much later as they grow older into childhood. Once a person is defined in terms of thinking (as you claimed), then zygotes, fetuses and even normal newborns are no longer fully persons. So, what are they, then? Are they merely members of a biological species, human being. This not only justifies abortion, but also infanticide.

Not at all. Infants, and even babies before they are born have the capacity for thought. This develops at a certain point as the fetus assembles. Before that point, it has absolutely no capacity for thought.

On the contrary. As I pointed out babies and infants don't have cognitive thinking nor can they form words, but they are not a lump of meat. There are also people who are mentally incompetent and unable to make rational decisions, but they are persons. If personhood resides in "thinking" as you claimed, then infants and those mentally unstable and incompetent can be killed because they are not viewed as persons in their own right.

I am arguing that personhood resides in the ability to think. Not to reason, not to speak, not to pass an IQ test, but the faculty to be conscious and aware. Infants, mentally unstable people and even people in a vegetative state clearly have these. A fetus, or any other stage before, which lacks a completed brain, does not.

To illustrate this, let us consider what it is about us that makes us persons with a few thoughts:
First: would you still be the same person if you had a leg amputated? If you lost a hand? If you had a kidney transplant? If you had a heart transplant? No doubt this would affect how you felt, but would you be a different person? If there any part of you that could change you into a new person if it were transplanted? The answer is yes, there is one part, and only one: your brain.
Second: it is now possible for human life to be supported without a brain being present - that is to say, the body can be kept alive. Is this body a person, without the brain? No.
Therefore, we can conclude that without a brain, you are not a person. In the case of a fetus, it is a lump of flesh that will, with luck, develop into a person; but it is not one yet.

It is true that a zygote has no brain, but it does have what will grow into a brain, just as an infant does not have speech but has what will grow into speech. Within the zygote is an already fully programmed individuality, from sex and aging to eye color. In other words, the personhood of the person is already there.

Potentially there, I'm afraid. I will one day lose my hair; that certainly means I am potentially a bald person, but am I one now? By moving from from "The zygote has everything it needs to grow into a person" to "therefore a microscopic cell is a person" you are taking an unwarranted leap of logic.

You claimed that the fetus or embryo is not a person, but are potential persons. If the fetus is only a potential person as you claimed, then it must be an actual something in order to be a potential person.

Sure. It's a zygote, embryo or fetus. Not a person. Because a person is something with the faculty for conscious awareness. If we find a body without that faculty, we do not consider it to be a person, and rightly so.

So, what is that actual something? Certainly, not an ape. There are no potential persons any more than there are potential apes. All persons are actual, as all apes are actual. Actual apes are potential swimmers, and actual persons are potential philosophers. The being is actual, the functioning is potential.

I've said above how I disagree with you on this, and I think my case makes sense. Again: can you call a living body a person if it does not have a brain? In adults, the answer is clearly no. In a fetus, the answer is clearly that abortion does no harm, as there is no person to be harmed.

Science says that human life begins at conception. According to the American College of Pediatricans:

I have no problems with this. We are not discussing life, but personhood. We have already seen that life can be present in a body when the brain is dead.

Conception is the break, the clear dividing line, and the only one. I am the same being from conception on. Otherwise we would not speak of the growth and development and unfolding of that being, of me. I was once a teenager, I was once an infant. I was once in my mothers womb. My functioning develops only gradually, but my me has a sudden beginning, which is at conception.

I have no problem with that, either. A course of events leading to you was certainly set in motion at the moment of conception; but it was your "body" only that existed - if we can call a single cell a body - before it gained the faculty for awareness, some months later.

Human life begins at conception and ends with death. Clinical death and bodily death are defined by the scientists and doctors. We leave it up to them. Because scientists and doctors have already defined a brain-dead person as clinically dead, then they are dead. They are not persons. You and I are in agreement with this. You and I are also in agreement with giving respect and honor to the dead because they were once persons. However, that is not so with those who are in a coma or vegetative state. Science declare these persons medically alive despite that they are incapable of having any rational thoughts and unable to function socially.

We're in agreement up until that last part. Science says that people in a coma or vegetative state are still capable of awareness or thought, even if it is severely impaired or arrested. However, if there is a point at which the brain is found to be dead, then it is a body without a brain, and a person no more.

 

[Selene03]

I am arguing that personhood resides in the ability to think. Not to reason, not to speak, not to pass an IQ test, but the faculty to be conscious and aware. Infants, mentally unstable people and even people in a vegetative state clearly have these. A fetus, or any other stage before, which lacks a completed brain, does not.

On the contrary, a sleeping person or someone who fell unconscious doesn't have a conscious thought nor are they aware of their surroundings while asleep or unconscious. That would also include the unborn child with a brain.

Sure. It's a zygote, embryo or fetus. Not a person. Because a person is something with the faculty for conscious awareness. If we find a body without that faculty, we do not consider it to be a person, and rightly so.

As I pointed out, science clearly stated that it is a living organism, a living human being.....with human DNA......not an ape. There is no such thing as a potential person just as there is no such thing as a potential ape. It is either a human being or not. All human beings are persons. A person is someone who matters in his or own right and deserves the highest respect simply because of their humanity.

We respect the body of a dead person because it was once a person. Likewise, the human being inside the mother's womb is also to be respected because it is a living human person. And the living deserves the same respect if not higher since it is living.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

On the contrary, a sleeping person or someone who fell unconscious doesn't have a conscious thought nor are they aware of their surroundings while asleep or unconscious. That would also include the unborn child with a brain.

Yes, I know. That's why I said "has the faculty for conscious thought", even if it is arrested, subdued, or however you wish to describe the effect of sleep and unconsciousness.

As I pointed out, science clearly stated that it is a living organism, a living human being.....with human DNA......not an ape. There is no such thing as a potential person just as there is no such thing as a potential ape. It is either a human being or not. All human beings are persons. A person is someone who matters in his or own right and deserves the highest respect simply because of their humanity.

I'm afraid that's simply a series of assertions. What you're going to need to tackle is the points I raised above, showing that there are certain circumstances in which we can conceive of a human being without a brain, and not consider them a person.
It's easy to say, "All human beings are persons" - and, in the context of history, it's a wise and good thing to say. But that's because we have very rarely had to tackle - and have only recently begun to deal with - issues of human beings without brains. That is what the argument is based on, and what you will have to address.

We respect the body of a dead person because it was once a person. Likewise, the human being inside the mother's womb is also to be respected because it is a living human person. And the living deserves the same respect if not higher since it is living.

This runs into the same problem I pointed out above. And I will further point out, in real fact, we do not respect fetuses and earlier stages as persons; I would posit that even "pro-lifers" do not, and I will explain why, in the following five points (this isn't essential to my argument, but I do find it an interesting point):
Point 1: a huge number of what I have referred to as potential persons suffer miscarriages, simply getting flushed out of the human body, without the assistance of science.
Point 2: Now, while there are some parents who find this distressing, even deeply so, on the whole, society's attitude is of indifference. Many parents never even knew about it, many would not care if they did know about it, and many often do not care if they do know about it.
Point 3: More significantly, there are, to the best of my knowledge, no pro-life groups raising an outcry about this, or saying that this is a tragedy.
Point 4: You may, at this point, ask why this is a problem. After all, these fetuses and embryos suffer miscarriages, not abortions; nobody is killing them, it's just chance. But, on consideration, this seems a very strange attitude from a pro-life perspective. After all, if there was a similar cause of death among babies or children, some epidemic disease which regularly and without warning wiped out large swathes of them, like smallpox, or polio, or pneumonia, then there would be an outcry, and doctors and scientists would be doing all they could to stop it. Instead, none of this is happening - nor, to the best of my knowledge, are pro-life groups demanding that it should.
Point 5: This, to my mind, is very strange. The only explanation I can think of is that, whatever their protestations, these people do not actually believe that a microscopic cell, or a brainless blob of human flesh, is an actual person. For evangelical right-wing Christians, at least, this would tally very well with the fairly obvious fact that their pro-life position is a cynical grab for political power (as they were, until recently, and as I have pointed out in this thread) solidly pro-choice.

 

[Strathos]

Humans without brains can accomplish a lot. Just look at Donald Trump.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Humans without brains can accomplish a lot. Just look at Donald Trump.

I knew there was a flaw somewhere in the argument...

 

[Selene03]

Yes, I know. That's why I said "has the faculty for conscious thought", even if it is arrested, subdued, or however you wish to describe the effect of sleep and unconsciousness.

You've written quite a lot for me to respond in one post. Therefore, let's discuss things one at a time because I don't want to write a book. Let's start with what consciousness is. You claim that consciousness requires a brain. You claim that since a zygote doesn't have a brain, it has no consciousness.

There are some scientists who believe that consciousness is not in the brain, but in the mind, which they claim is separate from the brain. According to one science article:

Traditionally, scientists have tried to define the mind as the product of brain activity: The brain is the physical substance, and the mind is the conscious product of those firing neurons, according to the classic argument. But growing evidence shows that the mind goes far beyond the physical workings of your brain.

No doubt, the brain plays an incredibly important role. But our mind cannot be confined to what’s inside our skull, or even our body, according to a definition first put forward by Dan Siegel, a professor of psychiatry at UCLA School of Medicine and the author of a recently published book, Mind: A Journey to the Heart of Being Human.

Other scientific articles link consciousness to quantum physics. According to that article:

A quantum physicist at Chungbuk National University in Korea has provided mathematical evidence that consciousness cannot be simulated in or replicated by a computer, and in turn that it cannot be the byproduct of neurological activity in the brain........Song also goes on to illustrate that consciousness itself is not like known physical systems, like neural pathways in the brain. "If consciousness cannot be represented in the same way all other physical systems are represented, it may not be something that arises out of a physical system like the brain. The brain and consciousness are linked together, but the brain does not produce consciousness. Consciousness is something altogether different and separate. The math doesn't lie."

With that said, science have also shown that there are living organisms that have consciousness without a brain. Plants, for example, are living things without a brain, but they have a primitive consciousness, in which they can sense gravity and water. Microbes are another living organism that don't have neurons or a brain but they solve complex problems, such as locating food, evading predators, and communicating for complex group activity. Microbes carry out these functions using at least six capacities that we have traditionally attributed only to brains.

So, what is consciousness? According to an article by Science and Technology (the bold is mine):

There is in the field the question, whether and to what extent consciousness can be studied by classic science. In classic science, the phenomena to be investigated are described by the observer as external objects, including our mind. Consciousness cannot be studied in this way-consciousness is not a phenomenon, but is the phenomenology itself (see Bitbol and collaborators). The observer cannot point at something outside there and say: there is the consciousness… Because by saying so, the observer becomes external to that thing he calls consciousness, and this is precisely what is logically impossible (see also Thompson, 2015). Descartes was looking for consciousness in the pineal gland, and some modern neurobiologists, looking for consciousness in the brain, or in the mind, or in the quantum states of tubulin, conceptually do the same ontological mistake. The main mystery is the origin, and the nature of consciousness. We do not even know why it is there, although some daring explanations are not missing, like the one by David Chalmers, who is proposing that consciousness as another basic universal constant, like space or time.

This is well-known background. The present short article was born from a specific consideration, and a corresponding question, about consciousness. The consideration is that consciousness must be based on a living entity. There is no consciousness without life, and there is no life without consciousness, and actually we can conceive a circular relation between consciousness and the experience which is present in a living entity (this would be a kind of embodied consciousness).

And now the question, about the very origin and nature of consciousness: why do not assume/propose that there is a simultaneous origination of life and consciousness? That the origin of consciousness corresponds to the arising of life? This would mean, simply, that in each living being the feeling-of-being arises with life itself. Being alive corresponds to the feeling of being. One means the other.

The stringent relation between life and consciousness is the very point which caused the above question to come to mind. In its primordial form, consciousness appears as a feeling-of-being, the feeling of a presence prior to the thought, and this can be seen as the main expression of consciousness.

The best definition to "consciousness" is based on life itself. Therefore, consciousness is based on a living entity, regardless of whether that entity has a brain or not. This would then rule out anything dead. Science has already determined that the zygote inside a female's womb is a living organism. Therefore, the next question is to determine exactly what creature the zygote is that is living inside the womb of a human female.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

You've written quite a lot for me to respond in one post. Therefore, let's discuss things one at a time because I don't want to write a book. Let's start with what consciousness is. You claim that consciousness requires a brain. You claim that since a zygote doesn't have a brain, it has no consciousness.

There are some scientists who believe that consciousness is not in the brain, but in the mind, which they claim is separate from the brain.

I understand; there has been a lot to get through on this thread, and I also find I need to take time to get responses written as fully as I can.

Now, your response above is very interesting, and a good discussion to have in general, I'm sure. But having read it through, it seems to me to be very speculative, and I'm afraid I don't think it has much to contribute to our present debate.
"Dr. Dan Siegel puts forward an idea in a recently published book", "a quantum physicist says that the maths doesn't lie", and "an article in Science and nature"? These are just proposals, ideas, "Wouldn't it be interesting if" thoughts. As I understand it, the mainstream scientific view is not that consciousness is the same as life itself, which sounds rather quasi-mystical. Life reacts to the outside world, yes, but without consciousness (whether a dog or a baby or a grown human) it's just reflex and instinct. I don't believe that most scientists would consider an amoeba to be conscious, or a flower, or a fetus either.

Beyond that, I'm afraid, there's really not much more I feel I need to say. However, I do hope you'll engage with the ideas I posted above, which I think make my case, and which I would be interested to see your reaction to.

 

[Selene03]

I understand; there has been a lot to get through on this thread, and I also find I need to take time to get responses written as fully as I can.

Now, your response above is very interesting, and a good discussion to have in general, I'm sure. But having read it through, it seems to me to be very speculative, and I'm afraid I don't think it has much to contribute to our present debate.
"Dr. Dan Siegel puts forward an idea in a recently published book", "a quantum physicist says that the maths doesn't lie", and "an article in Science and nature"? These are just proposals, ideas, "Wouldn't it be interesting if" thoughts. As I understand it, the mainstream scientific view is not that consciousness is the same as life itself, which sounds rather quasi-mystical. Life reacts to the outside world, yes, but without consciousness (whether a dog or a baby or a grown human) it's just reflex and instinct. I don't believe that most scientists would consider an amoeba to be conscious, or a flower, or a fetus either.

Beyond that, I'm afraid, there's really not much more I feel I need to say. However, I do hope you'll engage with the ideas I posted above, which I think make my case, and which I would be interested to see your reaction to.

The discussion of consciousness is relevant because you based your conclusion that zygotes don't have any consciousness. The only reason I brought up Dr. Siegel is to show that the field of science is never exact. There are always proposals and ideas, and these proposals and ideas come about as a result of their research.....studies they conducted. Consciousness is something one cannot see, so science tries to find physical ways to measure something that is not seen. That woud be like trying to measure "idea". Scientists and doctors who study humans can easily come to the conclusion that one needed a brain to have consciousness, but these scientists don't study plants and animals. So, when we turn to the biologists who do study plants and animals, we find that many biologists also concluded that plants and animals have consciousness.

Scientists are often at odds, determining where consciousness originated mainly because of the linguistics of what "consciousness" is. Scientists are not linguists. There are 10 definitions of "conscious". According to Dictionary.com:

1. aware of one's own existence, sensations, thoughts, surroundings, etc.
2. fully aware of or sensitive to something (often followed by of): conscious of one's own faults.
3. having the mental faculties fully active.
4. known to oneself; felt
5. aware of what one is doing
6. aware of oneself; self-conscious
7. deliberate; intentional: a conscious insult
8. acutely aware of or concerned about: money-conscious; a diet-conscious society
9. Obsolete. inwardly sensible of wrongdoing
10. Psychoanalysis . the part of the mind comprising psychic material of which the individual is aware.

With the exception of number 10, the definition of being conscious doesn't say anything about having a brain. Why? That is left to the scientist to discover. Today, there are studies showing that plants have consciousness. According to an article on plant research:

The new research, he says, is in a field called plant neurobiology — which is something of a misnomer, because even scientists in the field don't argue that plants have neurons or brains.

"They have analagous structures," Pollan explains. "They have ways of taking all the sensory data they gather in their everyday lives ... integrate it and then behave in an appropriate way in response. And they do this without brains, which, in a way, is what's incredible about it, because we automatically assume you need a brain to process information."

And we assume you need ears to hear. But researchers, says Pollan, have played a recording of a caterpillar munching on a leaf to plants — and the plants react. They begin to secrete defensive chemicals — even though the plant isn't really threatened, Pollan says. "It is somehow hearing what is, to it, a terrifying sound of a caterpillar munching on its leaves."

Pollan says plants have all the same senses as humans, and then some. In addition to hearing, taste, for example, they can sense gravity, the presence of water, or even feel that an obstruction is in the way of its roots, before coming into contact with it. Plant roots will shift direction, he says, to avoid obstacles.

While it's true that plants don't have brains, it can be said that plants are conscious under definition numbers 1, 4, 5, and 6. There are some scientists who believe that being conscious is based on a living entity. Primitive consciousness would be a sense of self-awareness or self-existence. This information is important to refute your conclusion that you would need a brain to have consciousness.

Now, we go on to the zygote. A zygote doesn't have a brain, but science recognize that it's a living organism. According to the American College of Pediatricans:

It is clear that from the time of cell fusion, the embryo consists of elements (from both maternal and paternal origin) which function interdependently in a coordinated manner to carry on the function of the development of the human organism. From this definition, the single-celled embryo is not just a cell, but an organism, a living being, a human being.

There are no studies done showing whether an embryo have consciousness or not because scientists who study humans have automatically concluded that one needed to have a brain to have consciousness. However, in a 2012 Scientific American article entitled "Do Plants Think?" Israeli botanist Daniel Chamovitz stated that plants can "see, feel, smell, - and remember". All this without neurons. Dr. Chamovitz explained: "Even in animals, not all information is processed or stored only in the brain. The brain is dominant in higher-order processing in more complex animals, but not in simple ones."

The embryo is a simple living organism. Is the embryo a potential human? No. It's not a potential human. It IS human because it has human DNA; therefore, one can't say it's a potential human. It'a human life with consciousness. With the study of plants and microbes, science can conclude that a simple living organism can have consciousness, even the most primitive consciousness of self-existence. And now on to address two of your points. As I said, I don't want to write a book. You stated:

And I will further point out, in real fact, we do notrespect fetuses and earlier stages as persons; I would posit that even "pro-lifers" do not, and I will explain why, in the following five points (this isn't essential to my argument, but I do find it an interesting point):
Point 1: a huge number of what I have referred to as potential persons suffer miscarriages, simply getting flushed out of the human body, without the assistance of science.
Point 2: Now, while there are some parents who find this distressing, even deeply so, on the whole, society's attitude is of indifference. Many parents never even knew about it, many would not care if they did know about it, and many often do not care if they do know about it.

Miscarriages occur naturally without any abortionist. Also, we do respect the fetuses that are aborted by doctors and fetuses that are miscarried. My friend had a miscarriage several years ago. She had twin girls. They were given names and a burial. As Christians, we recognize the twins who were miscarried as persons.

As for the aborted fetuses, there are burial and memorial sites for aborted fetuses across the United States, including my island. You can find these burial and memorial sites in the weblink below. Those who oppose abortion have established these burial and memorial sites for the embryos; therefore, we are not indifferent.

Gravesites and Memorial Sites Dedicated to the Aborted Unborn