yguy

Since you're an atheist, I'll agree to that definition for the purpose of communication.

As I've said many times (and debated recently here), I find the evidence for the idea that brain frunction is necessary for consciousness decidedly unconvincing.

Silent Acorns

Hmm. Well I consider the evidence for brain function being necessary for consciousness is extremely convincing. After a brief look at the link you provided, I have to conclude that your reluctance to accept this is based on the idea "when it comes to life I want to be 100% sure" and since you're not 100% sure your default position is don't terminate.

My problem with this line of thinking is that it applies equally to burying or cremating the dead. How can we be 100% sure that they're actually dead? By your standard, we can't. So logically, we shouldn't bury anyone.

themistocles

I think it's rather common sense, when the context of health was provided. If a woman is having morning sickness, that's not "a serious consequence". If a woman might die because she's pregnant, I think I'd well agree to that being a "serious consequence". You provided "health" as the context.

But, in this day in age, I'm fully unaware that serious health consequences of pregnancies are common.

Silent Acorns

First of all, I was making a multi-stage development list to avoid responses like "you don't need X to be human". I admit that (3) is implied by (5), but because of my list someone who doesn't consider (5) relevant still has to deal with (3).

As for deleting 1 + 2, you still need at least 1 lung and 1 kidney to live. The key point I was trying to make is that to be considered human, one at least needs to have organs and these organs should be functional (i.e. no just a blob of cells that will become functional later).
I included (4) because to me, if the fetus isn't viable on it's own then it is (to put it very bluntly) basically a parasite on the mother. As such, the mother is completely within her rights to "cut it off".

themistocles

This is an argument against abortion if there every was one. "Pro-life" people are inherently not against choice, as choices aren't created by the existence of pregnancy. Woman can actually choose not to get pregnant, believe it or not.

I'm an atheist, I have no moral horse in this race. I just find abortion as a socially repugnant action, and defense of it is no different in "taste" then sticking your finger in someone else's ear and smearing the wax on your face and declaring it "hygiene". It's repugnant, and it's a slippery slope position in which responsibility is overtly neglected. I hate to sound preacherish, but a worthwhile society must necessarily be built upon responsibility. If a woman doesn't want to have kids, they should consider not getting pregnant in the first place.

Perhaps my position is more one of taste than argument, but opinion is more unassailable than arguments.

yguy

I think it's a bad comparison, because at the point where a non-breathing person starts to rot, we can be sure they're dead, can we not?

Silent Acorns

Of course I would say "yes" to this, but what's at issue is the logical conclusion of your "how can we be sure" argument. How can we be sure that at least a "trace of human consciousness" doesn't survive during the rotting process? Science has been unable to prove that it doesn't.

If human consciousness can indeed exist without a functioning brain (which you insist is a possability) then why can't human consciousness can't survive conditions that satisfy the medical definition of death? How do you know we aren't killing a conscious life when we bury or cremate them?

My answer would be that we are at least 99.9% sure that human consiousness doesn't survive after medical death, just like we are at least 99.9% sure that human consiousness can't exist without a functioning brain.

yguy

Swell. If there is such consciousness, what would you have us do about it to be consistent? Bring the corpse back to life?

There is no particular reason to think burying a corpse would make any consciousness still attached to the body any more dead than it is already. I'm personally not crazy about the idea of cremation because of the possibility you mention, but we don't want to get too far afield.

Silent Acorns

There's also no particular reason to think that aborting a fetus without a funtioning brain would make it any less conscious than it is already.

Based on what you said here, you oppose legalized abortion for the same reason you are "not crazy" about cremation. If so, why do you consider abortion to be murder (I assume you do) and not cremation? Or are you just "not crazy" about abortion too?

yguy

I really don't know how you got that out of what I said.

Because cremation isn't killing, as far as I know - or at least, I have not sufficient grasp of the facts to be able to argue the point one way or the other.

If there is consciousness attached to a body after physical death, there isn't a damn thing we can do about it given our present state of knowledge. By contrast, if there is consciousness attached to a zygote, nothing extrordinary need be done besides refraining from killing it. And we have far more reason to believe consciousness is attached to a living thing than to a dead one.