Child sacrifice in America dealt with by heaven

SPF said:

Out of curiosity, why do you feel the need to create a distinction between a human being without moral value and a human person with moral value?

I’m my experience it’s only been so someone can justify an action against the non-person that would otherwise be considered immoral.

Click to expand...

Perhaps because if a fetus is a person with moral value, then we would all be horrifically negligent for not regarding miscarriages as a public health crisis.

Would you regard the deaths of millions of children every year as a problem? I would.

InterestedAtheist said:

As to your first point, the mind is basically a function of the brain. The fact that we don't understand all about this highly complicated field is completely irrelevant - unless you can provide evidence that the mind can exist without the brain. Again, without a working brain, no mind - no person.

Click to expand...

The article I provided already showed that the mind is different from the brain. As the article pointed out: repeated use of drugs such as heroin, cocaine, and alcohol alter the neural circuits that mediate the experience of pleasure as well as motivation, memory, inhibition, and planning -- modifications that we can often see on brain scans. Despite the alterations that drugs and alcohol had done to the neural circuits, some addicts were able to give up their addiction.....and this despite that the altered neural circuits were still present.

Second, I have never disputed that fetuses are human. You really would benefit from rereading the thread; this has come up time and time again. You and SPF keep saying, "but a fetus is a human!" and Todd and I kept saying, "Yes, we know".
At this point, I think it's a waste of my time answering points which have already been answered. From now on, when something comes up that I've already addressed multiple times, I shall just say:
Please see this summary of the argument, and let me know if you have a reasonable objection to it.

Click to expand...

You see that it's human; yet, you also see nothing wrong with killing a group of humans because they are smaller and less developed than other humans. You feel more comfortable with looking at "personhood" because in doing so, you don't need to deal with the fact that you are in favor with killing a group of humans.

Selene03 said:

The article I provided already showed that the mind is different from the brain. As the article pointed out: repeated use of drugs such as heroin, cocaine, and alcohol alter the neural circuits that mediate the experience of pleasure as well as motivation, memory, inhibition, and planning -- modifications that we can often see on brain scans. Despite the alterations that drugs and alcohol had done to the neural circuits, some addicts were able to give up their addiction.....and this despite that the altered neural circuits were still present.

Click to expand...

This is the weakest possible argument! I'm not even going to embarrass you by taking it seriously.

Selene03 said:

You see that it's human; yet, you also see nothing wrong with killing a group of humans because they are smaller and less developed than other humans. You feel more comfortable with looking at "personhood" because in doing so, you don't need to deal with the fact that you are in favor with killing a group of humans.

Click to expand...

Nope. To me, it's as plain as day. An organism without a brain is nothing but a lump of flesh. We've covered this, again and again. Therefore, please see this argument, and feel free to refute it if you can.

InterestedAtheist said:

This is the weakest possible argument! I'm not even going to embarrass you by taking it seriously.


Nope. To me, it's as plain as day. An organism without a brain is nothing but a lump of flesh. We've covered this, again and again. Therefore, please see this argument, and feel free to refute it if you can.

Click to expand...

A human life is worth more than you think. It's easier for you to say that because you were given the chance to live. Now that you're a "living person" (according to your definition), you get to decide who is a person and who isn't........who should die and who should live.

InterestedAtheist said:

Perhaps because if a fetus is a person with moral value, then we would all be horrifically negligent for not regarding miscarriages as a public health crisis.

Would you regard the deaths of millions of children every year as a problem? I would.

Click to expand...

Replace the word “miscarriage” with “abortion” and then you have a point.

And it makes sense that you would feel the need to create a distinction between a human being without moral value and a human being with moral value. Otherwise, how could you justify abortion?

But the point remains that we all agree that a new human and unique human being comes into existence at fertilization.

I’m just honest enough, and not arrogant enough to think that I can fabricate and make up a distinction between a human being with moral value and a human being without moral value.

Human beings either have moral value or they don’t. Discriminating against a human and declaring them without moral value because they haven’t developed to x is not something any of us have the authority to actually make true.

Selene03 said:

A human life is worth more than you think. It's easier for you to say that because you were given the chance to live. Now that you're a "living person", you get to decide who is a person and who isn't........who should die and who should live.

Click to expand...

Imagine that you were able to construct a human, like Dr. Frankenstein.
Yes, I know - it's impossible. But play along here.
Imagine you could, but you brought it to life without a brain.
What would it be?
Heart beating, lungs breathing, blood pumping - but nothing but empty flesh.
Not a person. A suit of skin.
I think that human people are extremely valuable. Intrinsically valuable. But human flesh is not. And you feel the same. You say you don't, but you do. We all do. Even pro-lifers do. We can tell this, because otherwise they would see miscarriages as deaths, and would demand medical research to stop them, just as we have medical research trying to stop childhood cancer and other forms of infant mortality.

SPF said:

Replace the word “miscarriage” with “abortion” and then you have a point.

And it makes sense that you would feel the need to create a distinction between a human being without moral value and a human being with moral value. Otherwise, how could you justify abortion?

But the point remains that we all agree that a new human and unique human being comes into existence at fertilization.

I’m just honest enough, and not arrogant enough to think that I can fabricate and make up a distinction between a human being with moral value and a human being without moral value.

Human beings either have moral value or they don’t. Discriminating against a human and declaring them without moral value because they haven’t developed to x is not something any of us have the authority to actually make true.

Click to expand...

There's nothing there you haven't said already. I can't be bothered to refute you any more, so I won't spell it out.

I will, however, note that you are unable to answer the question of why miscarriages are not a public health crisis. The answer is, of course, that we all know - even pro-lifers - that fetuses and earlier stages aren't babies, or persons.

InterestedAtheist said:

Imagine that you were able to construct a human, like Dr. Frankenstein.
Yes, I know - it's impossible. But play along here.
Imagine you could, but you brought it to life without a brain.
What would it be?
Heart beating, lungs breathing, blood pumping - but nothing but empty flesh.
Not a person. A suit of skin.
I think that human people are extremely valuable. Intrinsically valuable. But human flesh is not. And you feel the same. You say you don't, but you do. We all do. Even pro-lifers do. We can tell this, because otherwise they would see miscarriages as deaths, and would demand medical research to stop them, just as we have medical research trying to stop childhood cancer and other forms of infant mortality.

Click to expand...

My brother, why do you resort to science fiction? The one-celled zygote is not human flesh. Science claimed that it's a living organism, surviving and functioning independently on its own without the need of a brain.

Selene03 said:

My brother, why do you resort to science fiction? The one-celled zygote is not human flesh. Science claimed that it's a living organism, surviving and functioning independently on its own without the need of a brain.

Click to expand...

I knew you'd say that.
The reason I need to resort to hypothetical scenarios is that you are stubbornly insistent that personhood resides in something other than a functioning brain. The corollary of this is, you believe that a human being without a brain would still be a person. In fact, you know perfectly well that this is not so.
A good way to illustrate this is to imagine a scenario such as I described. It helps to clarify the situation by putting it in a new context. Another example might be, would you still be the same person if your brain was placed in a new body? Answer, yes - but in a new body. And if something happened to your old body, you would be unaffected. Because "you" is your brain.

These hypotheticals show the logic of the argument. The fact that you and SFP are completely unable to address the proves my point.

Also, by the way: a zygote being human flesh is not inconsistent with it being a living organism.

InterestedAtheist said:

I knew you'd say that.
The reason I need to resort to hypothetical scenarios is that you are stubbornly insistent that 9personhood resides in something other than a functioning brain. The corollary of this is, you believe that a human being without a brain would still be a person. In fact, you know perfectly well that this is not so.
A good way to illustrate this is to imagine a scenario such as I described. It helps to clarify the situation by putting it in a new context. Another example might be, would you still be the same person if your brain was placed in a new body? Answer, yes - but in a new body. And if something happened to your old body, you would be unaffected. Because "you" is your brain.

Also, by the way: a zygote being human flesh is not inconsistent with it being a living organism.

Click to expand...

On the contrary, if I cut off my finger, my finger cannot survive and function on its own. Even in heart transplant, the heart must be transplanted within 4 hours. After 4 hours, the heart is dead. The human, zygote, on the other hand, survives, functions, and grows on its own.

Selene03 said:

On the contrary, if I cut off my finger, my finger cannot survive and function on its own. Even in heart transplant, the heart must be transplanted within 4 hours. After 4 hours, the heart is dead. The human, zygote, on the other hand, survives, functions, and grows.

Click to expand...

That is no problem. I'm not claiming (as I've said many times) that the zygote is not a living organism. Nor am I claiming that parts of your body should be able to survive on their own. But if you lose your finger, or even your heart, it does not change your personality. Only your brain can affect that. Ergo, "you" are your brain and, absent a brain, you are not a person.

It seems strange that you might have to explain to someone that "without your brain you are not a person", but that's what we've come to.

InterestedAtheist said:

That is no problem. I'm not claiming (as I've said many times) that the zygote is not a living organism. Nor am I claiming that parts of your body should be able to survive on their own. But if you lose your finger, or even your heart, it does not change your personality. Only your brain can affect that. Ergo, "you" are your brain and, absent a brain, you are not a person.

It seems strange that you might have to explain to someone that "without your brain you are not a person", but that's what we've come to.

Click to expand...

I defined personhood differently than you. A person is not what they have or don't have nor what they do. A person is who they are......a human being. All the different stages of human life and development are a human being because before I was an adult, I was a teenager. Before that, I was a toddler. Before that I was an infant. Before that I was an embryo. Before that I was a zygote. It's about "me".

Selene03 said:

I defined personhood differently than you. A person is not what they have or don't have nor what they do. A person is who they are......a human being.

Click to expand...

And if your brain was moved into another body, swapped with another brain, where would "you" be? If I said, "Selene, where are you?" which body would reply?
The answer, of course, is the new one, the one with your brain in.
and if your old body was destroyed, would "you" be dead?
The answer is no. You would be alive, in your new body.
Therefore, brain = you. Lack of brain = no you.

Selene03 said:

All the different stages of human life and development are a human being because before I was an adult, I was a teenager. Before that, I was a toddler. Before that I was an infant. Before that I was an embryo. Before that I was a zygote. It's about "me".

Click to expand...

But we've already seen that, absent a brain, "you" does not exist. Therefore, when your mother was pregnant with a zygote, it was a growing shell waiting to be filled with you.
I understand this is difficult. I mean no insult to you or your mother. It's a simple fact, logically proven. "You" is a phenomenon produced by the workings on your brain. A good analogy is a computer; it can "think", but only when it's assembled and switched on.

Unless you're going to claim that a soul is really "you", in which case you win the argument with Christians and lose it with the rest of the world.

InterestedAtheist said:

And if your brain was moved into another body, swapped with another brain, where would "you" be? If I said, "Selene, where are you?" which body would reply?
The answer, of course, is the new one, the one with your brain in.
and if your old body was destroyed, would "you" be dead?
The answer is no. You would be alive, in your new body.
Therefore, brain = you. Lack of brain = no you.


But we've already seen that, absent a brain, "you" does not exist. Therefore, when your mother was pregnant with a zygote, it was a growing shell waiting to be filled with you.
I understand this is difficult. I mean no insult to you or your mother. It's a simple fact, logically proven. "You" is a phenomenon produced by the workings on your brain. A good analogy is a computer; it can "think", but only when it's assembled and switched on.

Unless you're going to claim that a soul is really "you", in which case you win the argument with Christians and lose it with the rest of the world.

Click to expand...

On the contrary. As I said, science is never exact. When it comes to the mind, brain, and consciousness, science is inconclusive. See the weblink below.


The Mind vs. Brain Debate (What is Consciousness?) - The Cuyamungue Institute

I am not my brain because my brain doesn’t control me. I control my brain. Once dead, my brain becomes a lump of flesh just like the rest of my body.

Selene03 said:

On the contrary. As I said, science is never exact. When it comes to the mind, brain, and consciousness, science is inconclusive. See the weblink below.


The Mind vs. Brain Debate (What is Consciousness?) - The Cuyamungue Institute

I am not my brain because my brain doesn’t control me. I control my brain. Once dead, my brain becomes a lump of flesh just like the rest of my body.

Click to expand...

Do you know what website you are quoting?

The Cuyamungue Institute is an independent, not-for-profit educational organization [Section 501 (c) (3)] committed to transforming consciousness through the ancient wisdom of ritual postures

Click to expand...

Not exactly science here.

As someone who has had a TBI, I have to disagree with your assertion. Everything we know to date shows that our brain controls us.

Belk said:

Do you know what website you are quoting?



Not exactly science here.

As someone who has had a TBI, I have to disagree with your assertion. Everything we know to date shows that our brain controls us.

Click to expand...

I control my brain. Every thought and action is under my will and my choice.

Selene03 said:

On the contrary. As I said, science is never exact. When it comes to the mind, brain, and consciousness, science is inconclusive. See the weblink below.


The Mind vs. Brain Debate (What is Consciousness?) - The Cuyamungue Institute

I am not my brain because my brain doesn’t control me. I control my brain. Once dead, my brain becomes a lump of flesh just like the rest of my body.

Click to expand...

Goodness me. I stopped reading, I'm afraid, as soon as I saw "In yogic science, the mind is considered to be pure vibrating energy." I did skim on a little more, to see that they were talking about near-death experiences.

The brain is an extremely.complex thing, and there is certainly a lot we don't know about it. But one thing we do know is that it produces your personality, and absent your brain, you are not a person. Logically, therefore, a fetus is not a person since it has no brain

Selene03 said:

I control my brain. Every thought and action is under my will and my choice.

Click to expand...

Ah. So I'm just imagining my left side is paralyzed?

Our justice system need to stop allowing criminals who are deliberately using the insanity plea. It wasn't me who did the criminal act. It was my insane brain. This is why we have psychologists to prove that it wasn't their brain who is at fault.

InterestedAtheist said:

But one thing we do know is that it produces your personality, and absent your brain, you are not a person. Logically, therefore, a fetus is not a person since it has no brain

Click to expand...

But absent your brain you are still a human being. And moral worth and value is not dependent upon being a human person which is a made up term, but on being a human being, which is something we know about scientifically.

Living human beings possess moral worth and value. Our developmental period lasts about 25 years. We don't grow into moral worth, we either have it or we don't.

All InterestedAtheist has done is continually beg the question in almost every thread, and then when he does put forth an argument, it fails the logic test VIA categorical mistakes. And then he throws in red herrings (think miscarriage) as he fails to recognize and acknowledge the categorical mistakes.

Creating a distinction between a human being and a human person is a purely philosophical argument, there's nothing scientific about it. The distinction that is made is arbitrary and subjective, based upon nothing more than the opinion of the person making the argument. It can be rejected outright.