identity of the unborn

[Darkhorse]

The truth is that the above statement is false.

Why do you say that?

 

[muichimotsu]

Being tied to another being's metabolism means you're not a person?

It means you can't meaningfully be considered as such, but I kind of doubt you can present anything otherwise of this particular nature. Roe v. Wade investigated this aspect in terms of viability of the unborn and noted that once they're viable, they can reasonably be considered a person the state might have a vested interest in protecting, but the rhetoric used by pro lifers is to ignore viability and focus on superficial aspects like human DNA and such, ignoring the potential aspect and the limited nature of actually being able to meaningfully interact.

I'd just as much consider a baby born with no brain, rare as that is, as not being a person meaningfully and would argue they're a shell at best that has no quality of life. A fetus before viability is quite similar in that it will die outside of the womb and likely much quicker considering it wouldn't even have the developed organ systems or such

 

[muichimotsu]

What is the purpose of data on a hard drive?

False equivalency, the soul was posited long before we had the understanding of the brain, data and a hard drive were pretty much intertwined by design in the concept

 

[muichimotsu]

It is self-aware software, just like your computer [hardware] cannot function without its operating system [software]. Software is massless, and it can be re-installed on a subsequent device.

Again, as I pointed to another, this is a false equivalency, because you're taking a concept that applies validly to technology and trying to suggest it also applies to a metaphorical interpretation related to 2 areas that don't necessarily overlap unless you take both as valid (the body as natural and the soul as supernatural)

 

[muichimotsu]

An unborn child is an entire functional person at their stage of development.
Sure, they start out without arms & legs, etc., but even as a fertilized egg, they have everything necessary to become a finished body, assuming they remain connected to mom's metabolism for a few months.

I was once connected to a respirator for awhile; I didn't lose my personhood simply because I couldn't breathe on my own for a time.

That's accidental, not inherent, which would be the case for a fetus that's not viable because of its lacking development in regards to things like functional biology to a point they aren't always going to be dependent from birth. Someone who has an accident and becomes dependent is not the same as 1) a baby born to a point they might as well be dead or 2) a baby born not even viable and would pretty much be consigned to death already, versus with birth defects that are fatal

It's the same category error as suggesting I don't think a person in a coma is a person because they are lacking one particular capacity in a temporary fashion: that was a person and can still be a person in the nominal sense versus what is insinuated onto an entity that is human, but not a person in the moral agent or patient sense as with a born child that can be raised by anyone and grow up to be independent, versus an entity necessarily tied to a particular woman's metabolism by pregnancy and cannot function otherwise.

 

[muichimotsu]

Why?

Because one is viable, roughly functional, and can be raised to independence, the other cannot function period because it isn't viable in the first place and would die apart from the womb's environment because of how gestation works in being gradual development of those biological functions a baby without crippling/fatal birth defects has and can be raised even by an adoptive parent and function

 

[muichimotsu]

It sounds like you're open to the argument that it's not a human being before it reaches the fetal stage.

Methinks they're saying the latter in regards to using "subjective" when they mean "relative" and effectively trying to undermine the opposing position as having no basis, faulty reasoning on their part because it's strawman, if not reductio ad absurdum

 

[redleghunter]

Because one is viable and can function after being raised to independence, the other cannot function period because it isn't viable in the first place and would die apart from the womb's environment because of how gestation works in being gradual development of those biological functions a baby without crippling/fatal birth defects has and can be raised even by an adoptive parent and function

Infants then are not viable by your definition.

 

[redleghunter]

Methinks they're saying the latter in regards to using "subjective" when they mean "relative" and effectively trying to undermine the opposing position as having no basis, faulty reasoning on their part because it's strawman, if not reductio ad absurdum

No I meant subjective.

 

[muichimotsu]

Actually the question should be what does the mind do that the brain does not

This assumes the mind is a tangible phenomenon we can study like the brain, versus the more reasonable and cogent interpretation of the mind as an emergent phenomenological property of the brain that we can investigate, but not to the extent we can with the brain

 

[redleghunter]

This assumes the mind is a tangible phenomenon we can study like the brain, versus the more reasonable and cogent interpretation of the mind as an emergent phenomenological property of the brain that we can investigate, but not to the extent we can with the brain

That’s the point.

 

[muichimotsu]

No I meant subjective.

Not sure what you define as subjective, because it's not necessarily a singular definition

 

[muichimotsu]

That’s the point.

But you can't demonstrate that about the mind, it's a conceptual thing we use to understand psychology in regards to such things, it's not something we can investigate like the brain in terms of neurology.

 

[muichimotsu]

Infants then are not viable by your definition.

Bollocks, they can survive when raised, which is in their nature in the first place, merely because they cannot function the same as an adult is not indicative of viability, which is about whether you can live, given you have other things required to function, like food, water

I phrased the expression wrong, you are viable not after you've been raised to independence, but because you can be raised to independence, otherwise I would be suggesting that dependence is the same as being nonviable, but that's demonstrably wrong.

 

[redleghunter]

Not sure what you define as subjective, because it's not necessarily a singular definition

That’s the point.

 

[redleghunter]

But you can't demonstrate that about the mind, it's a conceptual thing we use to understand psychology in regards to such things, it's not something we can investigate like the brain in terms of neurology.

Yet we have minds.

 

[redleghunter]

Bollocks, they can survive when raised, which is in their nature in the first place, merely because they cannot function the same as an adult is not indicative of viability, which is about whether you can live, given you have other things required to function, like food, water

I phrased the expression wrong, you are viable not after you've been raised to independence, but because you can be raised to independence, otherwise I would be suggesting that dependence is the same as being nonviable, but that's demonstrably wrong.

Yet children even to the age of 3 and over are dependent. They would starve to death without other human interaction and provision.

It was you who established your subjective definition of viability being independence.

 

[muichimotsu]

Yet we have minds.

Yes, restate your argument in a vague way: that's not helping, I already offered a basic explanation that philosophers who study theory of mind can enumerate far better.

Minds no more exist tangibly than numbers, they both serve functional purposes in terms of understanding ourselves and the world respectively. The lack of tangibility is not the same as a lack of existence in the functional sense, but there must also be a rational element that isn't engaging in cognitive dissonance, like someone using God as a "rational" explanation for cosmology while ignoring the causal principle they affirm outside of the God concept

 

[redleghunter]

Yes, restate your argument in a vague way: that's not helping, I already offered a basic explanation that philosophers who study theory of mind can enumerate far better.

Minds no more exist tangibly than numbers, they both serve functional purposes in terms of understanding ourselves and the world respectively. The lack of tangibility is not the same as a lack of existence in the functional sense, but there must also be a rational element that isn't engaging in cognitive dissonance, like someone using God as a "rational" explanation for cosmology while ignoring the causal principle they affirm outside of the God concept

Brain function is not the conscious mind.

 

[NxNW]

It's the same category error as suggesting I don't think a person in a coma is a person because they are lacking one particular capacity in a temporary fashion: that was a person and can still be a person in the nominal sense versus what is insinuated onto an entity that is human, but not a person in the moral agent or patient sense as with a born child that can be raised by anyone and grow up to be independent, versus an entity necessarily tied to a particular woman's metabolism by pregnancy and cannot function otherwise.

A person in a coma has been born and had cognitive capacity prior to the coma.