yguy

No, I'm saying the assertion that zygotes lack any degree of consciousness cannot be scientifically verified.

What we commonly refer to as physical laws are merely descriptions of those mechanisms we have found to be predictable in some degree, based on our observations and what is known. Our knowledge of consciousness as it relates to fetal development is not nearly sufficient to justify drawing parallels to post-natal physiology.

My guess would be rather that consciousness extends itself into the CNS as it develops.

Your basis for this assertion, please?

Loren Pechtel

Originally posted by yguy
What we commonly refer to as physical laws are merely descriptions of those mechanisms we have found to be predictable in some degree, based on our observations and what is known. Our knowledge of consciousness as it relates to fetal development is not nearly sufficient to justify drawing parallels to post-natal physiology.

You're forgetting Occam's razor. There's no reason to assume something different other than to prop up the pro-life argument.

My guess would be rather that consciousness extends itself into the CNS as it develops.

From where? This sounds like a religious argument. Last I looked the fundies hadn't succeeded in repealing the First Amendmant.

yguy

There is no reason to assume anything whatsoever. It makes a lot more sense to be cognizant of one's ignorance when dealing with questions of life and death, it seems to me.

How would laws tacitly but implicitly acknowledging God's existence be a violation of the amendment?

dk

There are three issues I see here.

1. When does a human life begin? The life of all mammals begins as a zygote.
2. When does consciousness begin? Nobody knows because consciousness resists definition.
3. The Supreme Court dodged the question by subjugating the fetus’s life to the mother’s discretion.

I’m not sure what consciousness or Ockham’s razor has to do with abortion, but the simplest theory is that all living creatures have a will to live, and therefore must be conscious. What could be simpler, it avoids all the complexity introduced if we try to define consciousness!!!

long winded fool

LOL

I did not claim that you are arguing that fetuses are born with rights; I posted that you didn't make such a claim; what could you possibly hope to accomplish by posting such blatant lies? The phrase "they can only be logically included" is in clear reference to your erroneous assertion about the meaning of the term "human family," and there is no honest way you could interpret that to mean that I was accusing you of claiming that "fetuses can only logically be included in the phrase 'All are born with dignity and rights.'"

Clear to me and you perhaps but no one else who you were addressing. Hence the label of straw man. You wisely refrained from stating exactly what you were talking about because you are aware that you've already been refuted. All members of the human family must logically include fetuses and invalids and Africans and scuba divers.

Fetuses can be excluded from the term; as in "All human beings are born with dignity and human rights" from the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, because they aren't born at all.

lwf aserts that human beings (born with dignity and human rights) neither includes nor excludes fetuses , which it may. [/B]

More proof that you are aware of your deceptive arguing methods, this time in the same post no less. You already know that the phrase "All humans are born with dignity and rights" carries no information about unborn humans, and therefore fetuses CANNOT be specifically excluded in this statement.

If the sentence, "All human beings are born with dignity and human rights" does not logically have to include fetuses in the UNDHR, then other references to human beings in the document don't have to either; they may, but they don't have to. Therefore it is possible to discriminate against fetuses and remain logical.

If the phrase "all humans walk the earth with dignity and human rights" does not logically have to include humans who do not walk, and a separate phrase appears which specifies "All members of the human family have inalienable rights" then non-walking humans are specifically included and implied in both.

You are not arguing honestly and I know from your posts that you are aware that you're often dishonest and unreasonable. All you can do when you run out of logical fallacies is resort to outright lies, trying to convince others that you must be right by claiming you didn't post what you posted, or claiming someone else posted something they didn't. When someone is decent and rational, they don't resort to such dishonesty. Your discomfort shows in your pretensions. When the flaws in your reasoning are pointed out to you, you simply repeat and reword your fallacious assertions. You appear incapable of reason, (an accusation I'm sure many who post here would agree with) instead of actually addressing my argument and responding to my challenges. It is hard to understand why you would want to make such a fool of yourself.

Rick

They say mimicry is the sincerest form of flattery.

Loren Pechtel

In an adult conciousness comes from brain function. Why should we think differently about the fetus? That's where Occam's razor comes in--we have no evidence of another system, therefore why suppose it?

As for a will to live--I don't think so. The simplest creatures have no brain and will not react to being attacked--they'll go about their business while something is eating them up.

dk

Adult consciousness? You can't define consciousness period, it resists definition. All life must have a "will to live", so must be conscious at some basic level. Until science can find some underlying reality for an organism's "will to live" then Ockham's razor favors a "will to live" as the simplest statement of consciousness.

Instincts like many natural behaviors are passed from generation to genteration and speak to the heart of the nature nurture argument. How can behavior be passed from one generation to the next if a single cell zygote lacks consciousness?

My answer is that it can't, so a single cell organism has a level of consciousness that defies appearances and explanation.

Once more, there's a lot of scientific speculation that consciousness exists on a quantum level so I think you're jumping the gun.

yguy

This is not an established fact. We know that if we remove the brain, the physical body will lose the appearance of being conscious. It does not follow from this that the consciousness which formerly manifested itself through the body is destroyed in the process, only that we can no longer see evidence of it.

Loren Pechtel

True but there's no reason to think it might be anywhere else other than religious arguments about a soul.

yguy

I don't know why there has to be anything particularly religious about it. If you equate consciousness with a soul, theology comes to mind, but I don't know that we have to fit the concept to Christianity or any other religion. Consciousness is what it is, without regard to the philosophical musings of clerics or the empirical mindset of scientists.