Abortion Opinions (no flaming)

[HugATree]

 

Like someone said earlier "there are millions of people wanting to adopt." So no that baby is not unwanted. Just because its unwanted by the mother and you call it a parasite doesnt mean it doesnt have the right to life.

 

 

 

So why are there millions of children waiting to be adopted?

[Death_By_Pod]

 

OK, so what level of brain-functionality qualifies an organism for protection? A living breathing cow is rather more self aware than a third trimester fetus. Surely we should then protect the cow over the fetus? Is being "human" somehow more valuable than being bovine? If so why? Is your third trimester line extensible if the fetus can be shown to have less than normal brain functionality? Surely, in the case of anencephaly, we can abort the fetus anytime, since even if born doctors wouldn't attempt to resuscitate a baby born with no brain. So if the fetus is somewhere between brain-dead and normal can we extend the abortion deadline? Even to after birth? Why not?

 

 

 

When the foetus exhibits a normal brainwave would be the easiest identifier.

 

 

 

The cow isn't the same species as us and has no protections (it isn't endangered; it has no conservation movement behind it). Being human is more valuable because we naturally want our species to dominate even if it means stepping over other species to get there.

 

 

 

Of course you can abort the child if it is brain-dead, 3rd trimester is only used as an average. If the foetus is born without a brain then it would be technically dead, but if the baby doesn't exhibit a normal brainwave then sure abort it.

[Katryna]

I've come back after a couple of hours of sleep to explain myself a little. I came home from the hospital to see the posts with talk of human life being DNA and all of this other junk. My reality today is that my husband who I love dearly has had another mini stroke. One of the things that we had to discuss and talk to the doctor about was when treatment was to stop. There is a very real chance that maybe not tomorrow but some day in the future I will have to let him go even if he still has all the human DNA, major organs and everything else you are talking about but has no brain function. If his body is just going through the motions but his mind is gone I will be required to sign the paper to let him go.

 

 

 

So you see all of this talk of DNA and cell with potential for live but lack of ability to live on their own really doesn't hole a whole lot of water to me at the moment with what I Know I look forward to someday. This may not be proper debating style to you but it is my reality.

 

 

 

God bless you all as you try to decide what is or isn't human life and I pray you will never be faced with the reality of having to decide it about a person you love. I'm also sorry if I was harsh in my last post. I will now leave you in peace to believe what you want.

[pianofrieak2]

I don't care to argue any more. Let abortion become illegal let the women die on kitchen tables. Let them try to use knitting needles or coathangers. Let women fear to have sex, let them stay second class citizens because they take time off work to have babys they don't want. Let them be dependent on the will of me. Doesn't matter to me I helped fight to allow women to have full reproductive rights but who cares.

 

 

 

While your at it why don't you make birth control illegal too I mean ever sperm and egg should have the chance to be a baby. I don't care.

 

 

 

Come, now. Your entire point isn't about whether or not abortion should be allowed or not...it's entirely an emotional appeal since you already lost that argument.

 

 

 

Let me ask you a question: Do you believe in utilitarianism? This is the belief that morality is determined based on the number of people it helps.

 

 

 

If you say yes, then you can't believe your viewpoint. For one thing, we Ghost has already argued that a fetus is a living human being. If we let a MAYBE a couple hundred women die at the "kitchen tables", but we save tens of thousands of babies from being aborted, then we have utilized our resources and are saving lives. It's a good act.

 

 

 

If you say no, you don't believe in utilitarianism, then what do you believe? You can either be a nihilist or a selfish person who says I can do whatever I want when I want in my way. The government in such a system is called anarchy. :wink:

 

 

 

About your birth control statement: Preventing the sperm and the egg from meeting is fine but once they have met and formed a living zygote, a fetus, a baby, a tiny human being, then killing it is wrong and should be illegal.

 

 

 

Edit: Seeing your last post, I am terribly sorry about your husband. That's a very difficult thing to go through. I can understand your reaction, be it harsh, and hope my response wasn't too strong. I'll be praying for your husband.

 

 

 

BTW, we are talking about the intrinsic nature of life. Life has value, at all stages. The only reason we "let people go" is because of our undying belief that there truly is an after-life and we have hope of seeng them there or that it's not utilizing our resources to keep them alive. I believe in the former more than the latter. The latter, a part of eugenics, will play a key role in our future unfortunately.

[Guest GhostRanger]

When the foetus has a functioning brain; this occurs some time in the third trimester. I draw the line here because it is the organ which we associate human qualities with (life and consciousness) without it there isn't much the body can do other then exist because it is being nourished.

 

 

 

What about kids who have such severe cases of mental [developmentally delayed]ation that they can't function and live on their own? Are they people or are they just not fully functioning feoetuses who have happen to come out of the woman?

 

 

 

 

Oh that's a cheap shot at me leaving out the word "human" and you know it. :P I would have to disagree with your assertion that the new DNA being a mixture of the previous DNA makes it not "new." I came up with a lot of comparisons, but then I realized that the point is much too ideological. You either believe its something new or you don't. I don't think I can change your mind about it using any factual data...nor could you provide convincing factual data to prove its not considered "new," since the words new is being used so subjectively.

 

 

 

It's not a cheap shot, you should have used given me something more solid; when I get lazy, other people are quick to pounce on me.

 

 

 

People like to think that their unique and important but we are almost exactly the same as everyone else. We share more then 99.9% of the same DNA so even if you are made from your parents you still are more then 99.85% similar to any one parent; I don't think anyone would call 99.85% different to 99.9%. In the real world we consider values such as >2-5% difference to be unreasonable, 0.1% on the other hand would be wonderful for every day use. Thinking we are different and special is the reason why racism still exists.

 

 

 

Its not that I was lazy or not solid, its that I left out a word. Lighten up...I even put a smilie in there.

 

 

 

You're drawing way too many arbitrary conclusions in that paragraph. We are different and unique. It doesn't matter how much DNA we share with other people, we're not the same. Me thinking I'm unique has nothing to do with racism. I don't know why or where you came up with that conclusion.

[Katryna]

The flaw to all of the arguments become defining at which point human life starts and what it is, also in defining that you also must define when it ends.

 

 

 

Now if you define human life as when there is DNA that is "human" but different that the woman who carries it. Then it become perfectly okay to use cloning because that DNA will be the same the donor and they can do what they want with their DNA. You will also have to define which part of the DNA is "human" or you may not be able to remove a tumor or a mole pregnancy.

 

 

 

Now if it is when a fetus can live outside of a womans body you also need to define how much medical intervention is allowed. A preemie can live earlier and earlier but takes massive medical intervention and may end up with no quality of life.

 

 

 

This also comes back as to what is quality of life and how much the government is responsible for it after it has defined it.

 

 

 

Now if we define it as self awareness we have the problem of those who are severally [developmentally delayed]ed and may never see themselves as anything. Those who will remain "babies" for all of their lives with no awareness other then hunger and discomfort.

 

 

 

Maybe higher brain function? Then the brain needs to be fully formed before it is human. Medically we have to find out when the higher brain starts to function.

 

 

 

Comes back to when does life end. When the body can't function? When the brain quits functioning? When higher brain activity stops? How much medical intervention should be allowed to keep someone alive and again what is alive? Who has to right to decide when to pull the plug? The government, the person, or the people who know them?

 

 

 

Also if we allow the government to decide who can and can't have an abortion then that government should also be responsible for the full care of the human that results. Government definds murder and is responsible of keeping in from happening and also catching who did it.

 

 

 

Once I see all the people who want abortion illegal agree on what is human life and when it starts and stops. Then we will have a real debate.

 

 

 

After the last couple of days I'm really thinking about all of this, too. I still come back to the point that until everyone agrees these things belong in the hands of the people involved not the law.

[Guest GhostRanger]

Also if we allow the government to decide who can and can't have an abortion then that government should also be responsible for the full care of the human that results. Government definds murder and is responsible of keeping in from happening and also catching who did it.

 

 

 

Once I see all the people who want abortion illegal agree on what is human life and when it starts and stops. Then we will have a real debate.

 

 

 

After the last couple of days I'm really thinking about all of this, too. I still come back to the point that until everyone agrees these things belong in the hands of the people involved not the law.

 

 

 

I'm ignoring the rest of the post because I already defined when I believe human life begins.

 

 

 

Your point on government doesn't make sense. The government is responsible for stopping murder from happening and catching who did it - as they should be responsible for stopping abortions and catching who has one. Those are equal points. Neither has ANYTHING to do with taking care of whoever wasn't aborted/murdered.

 

 

 

Your point about people who believe it should be illegal disagreeing doesn't work either because the people who believe it should be legal don't even come close to agreeing. Not only do you have pro-abortion people verse pro-choice people, but you also have people disagreeing all over the place about when life begins so therefore when should a baby be aborted. In fact, those who want it illegal almost unanimously support it being illegal at conception. Its the rest of the community that disagrees.

[highlanders]

I'm all for abortion. To be crude, I have in very high hatred all kids.

 

My phylosophy is, the human being has been on earth for a countless time, and had plenty of time to have proven itself useless and pointless. Isn't it the height of egoism to want to live a human being as a legacy, a living copy of you? People make children because at some point for either biological needs, the feeling of being useless, or plain feel it is a duty. All three reasons illusional. Some people just 'want' children, for no reason, heh.

 

If people want to change their mind and use abortion, then no problem, I understand them.

 

 

 

In the USA, a lot of people are against abortion, it is a spreaded thought. Encouraged even. But in most countries, it isn't the case.

[Guest GhostRanger]

I'm all for abortion. To be crude, I have in very high hatred all kids.

 

My phylosophy is, the human being has been on earth for a countless time, and had plenty of time to have proven itself useless and pointless. Isn't it the height of egoism to want to live a human being as a legacy, a living copy of you? People make children because at some point for either biological needs, the feeling of being useless, or plain feel it is a duty. All three reasons illusional. Some people just 'want' children, for no reason, heh.

 

If people want to change their mind and use abortion, then no problem, I understand them.

 

 

 

In the USA, a lot of people are against abortion, it is a spreaded thought. Encouraged even. But in most countries, it isn't the case.

 

 

 

1) Your PHILOSOPHY only exists because you exist to think of it.

 

 

 

2) Your reasons that you have given for people to have children are completely made up with absolutely no basis.

[Death_By_Pod]

 

What about kids who have such severe cases of mental [developmentally delayed]ation that they can't function and live on their own? Are they people or are they just not fully functioning feoetuses who have happen to come out of the woman?

 

 

 

You're drawing way too many arbitrary conclusions in that paragraph. We are different and unique. It doesn't matter how much DNA we share with other people, we're not the same. Me thinking I'm unique has nothing to do with racism. I don't know why or where you came up with that conclusion.

 

 

 

People with severe mental disabilities still register a brain wave, underdeveloped foetuses do not. It has nothing to do with mental capacity; it has everything to do with it being built and activated. Having a brainwave is the condition for being alive (not brain dead) so things like disability play no part in determining if you're a human or not.

 

 

 

It's not arbitrary, I'm trying to put the statistics into some form of context (by stating that most household products differentiate more, for example if you weighed two bags of flour you will not get them within 0.1% of the advertised weight). The DNA that does differentiate from one person to another is the least important component of DNA; you are all born with a brain, heart etc.

 

The environment does more work differentiating us then DNA; in fact the environment is what gives us such large aesthetic variation (infinitely more then what genetics could do). The things we use to differentiate between one another (e.g. skin condition, hair, posture, voice, weight, mannerisms etc. etc.) are all governed by the environment with little (if any) coming from genetics. The criteria that most people use to determine if someoneÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s different are environmental ones, not genetic (with the obvious exceptions of things such as sex and natural hair/skin/eye colour and even then most people have artificial skin/hair colours).

 

 

 

I wasn't calling you racist but the idea that we are all different is the sole reason why it still exists. Ever hear about how black people are more athletic, black people are less intelligent, asianÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s are good at maths etc. has everything to do with the perception that we have genetic differences, when in fact there is no evidence to suggest different races have different genetic traits.

[Hannibal]

Also if we allow the government to decide who can and can't have an abortion then that government should also be responsible for the full care of the human that results. Government definds murder and is responsible of keeping in from happening and also catching who did it.

 

 

 

Once I see all the people who want abortion illegal agree on what is human life and when it starts and stops. Then we will have a real debate.

 

 

 

After the last couple of days I'm really thinking about all of this, too. I still come back to the point that until everyone agrees these things belong in the hands of the people involved not the law.

 

 

 

I'm ignoring the rest of the post because I already defined when I believe human life begins.

 

 

 

Your point on government doesn't make sense. The government is responsible for stopping murder from happening and catching who did it - as they should be responsible for stopping abortions and catching who has one. Those are equal points. Neither has ANYTHING to do with taking care of whoever wasn't aborted/murdered.

 

 

 

You're comparing abortion to murder, while it is only comparable when you already commit to your definition of life, ie, your point of view on abortion. So you're making a really weird argument here: Abortion is wrong because it is murder because you kill something that's alive, and since it's murder the government should stop it and it's wrong. That's not an argument. Kat was questioning when something was alive - you may have given your definition, but below you admit that not everyone agrees, so not everyone agrees that abortion is actually murder - while if you kill someone walking on the street, currently about 99% of America (or any western country) will agree that you can generally call that murder (if you can prove it's premeditated, of course (at least, in Dutch law, you have a different name for it if it wasn't premeditated, but that might be different in the US, I'm not sure...)).

 

 

 

So, the fact that the government catches murderers and tries to stop them from committing murder in the first place is because it's generally agreed upon that killing a human that's sustained by its own heart, lungs and brains is wrong.

 

 

 

We do not agree whether killing a human/parasite that's sustained by something else is wrong (otherwise we wouldn't be having this debate) and hence the government can't make laws based on 'general opinion', because there is none. So, the decision should be left to the people.

 

 

 

For what it's worth, the argument here is similar to what the US Supreme Court decided in the Roe vs. Wade case:

 

We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.

 

 

 

In fact, those who want it illegal almost unanimously support it being illegal at conception. Its the rest of the community that disagrees.

 

That's simply not true, a lot of the people in this debate have said they want it to be illegal after day X because then organ Y will have developed so much that it can be called human, other people want to have it legal for rape and incest victims, still others think that sperm and eggs, while separate, are 'seeds to life' and should be left alone (see some people's views on the use of contraception), still others think that taking a morning after pill or having an abortion should be illegal, but using contraception is legal.... there are so many varying opinions from the people who are talking about this.

 

 

 

OK, so what level of brain-functionality qualifies an organism for protection? A living breathing cow is rather more self aware than a third trimester fetus.?

 

How do you know that the cow is self-aware?

[dwarfie76]

OK, so what level of brain-functionality qualifies an organism for protection? A living breathing cow is rather more self aware than a third trimester fetus.?

 

How do you know that the cow is self-aware?

 

 

 

You think a cow is not aware of it's own existence to some degree?

 

 

 

I like how you removed the conditional modifier "rather more" to make it look like I was inferring that a cow is fully self-aware in the same sense that a normal human adult is self-aware. When in actual fact it was quite sufficiently apparent that I was referring to self-awareness being something that exists across a broad spectrum rather than as an absolute state. A human is more self-aware than a cow, and a cow is more self-aware than an oyster.

 

 

 

I might use that debating strategy some time, but then I'd run the risk of looking like a right prat wouldn't I?

[Anesthesia]

and a cow is more self-aware than an oyster.

 

 

 

I don't know about that... Did you know that the light emitting diode was invented by an oyster?

[Hannibal]

OK, so what level of brain-functionality qualifies an organism for protection? A living breathing cow is rather more self aware than a third trimester fetus.?

 

How do you know that the cow is self-aware?

 

 

 

You think a cow is not aware of it's own existence to some degree?

 

 

 

I like how you removed the conditional modifier "rather more" to make it look like I was inferring that a cow is fully self-aware in the same sense that a normal human adult is self-aware. When in actual fact it was quite sufficiently apparent that I was referring to self-awareness being something that exists across a broad spectrum rather than as an absolute state. A human is more self-aware than a cow, and a cow is more self-aware than an oyster.

 

 

 

I might use that debating strategy some time, but then I'd run the risk of looking like a right prat wouldn't I?

 

 

 

The fact that you used the words "rather more" does not make a difference. You are not a cow, nor a just-born baby, so you have absolutely no way of knowing how self-aware they are.

 

 

 

Also, making pointless ad-hominem attacks trying to discredit the line of arguments I'm following here is not really a nice thing to do. I'm fine with apologizing for not including those words when asking my question if it really offended you all that much. As just said, I don't believe they make any difference in the point I'm trying to make here.

[insane]

 

The fact that you used the words "rather more" does not make a difference.

 

 

 

I just think it was the random removal of the phrase. If it doesn't make a difference, why edit it out? It just looks a little suspicious is all.

[dwarfie76]

The fact that you used the words "rather more" does not make a difference. You are not a cow, nor a just-born baby, so you have absolutely no way of knowing how self-aware they are.

 

I'm also not you. Does that mean you are not self aware? I can observe you, and your interaction with your environment and make a judgement as to the level of self awareness you posess. However, yes you are technically correct. You could indeed be an android with absolutely no self awareness.

 

 

 

Also, making pointless ad-hominem attacks trying to discredit the line of arguments I'm following here is not really a nice thing to do. I'm fine with apologizing for not including those words when asking my question if it really offended you all that much. As just said, I don't believe they make any difference in the point I'm trying to make here.

 

 

 

Well that's just it, you don't actually have a point. Unless you are actually arguing that a cow posesses no self awareness at all. Which would be blatantly stupid.

[Hannibal]

The fact that you used the words "rather more" does not make a difference. You are not a cow, nor a just-born baby, so you have absolutely no way of knowing how self-aware they are.

 

I'm also not you. Does that mean you are not self aware? I can observe you, and your interaction with your environment and make a judgement as to the level of self awareness you posess. However, yes you are technically correct. You could indeed be an android with absolutely no self awareness.

 

Except that we're both the same species (human) and we assume a similar level of self-awareness within similarly developed entities within the species, and, self-referencing, you're aware that you're self-aware.

 

 

 

Additionally, how would you test an animal or creature for self-awareness, then? You're using that term very lightly here - it's not as simple as you're trying to make it sound.

 

 

 

Unless you are actually arguing that a cow posesses no self awareness at all. Which would be blatantly stupid.

 

For me, self-awareness is defined by having the ability to know that 'you' are there, and the ability to reason about yourself. It would be up for discussion entirely to what extent a cow can reason, if at all, so I don't see how it'd make me stupid to propose that a cow is not self-aware. You also didn't provide any arguments for your 'point', I might add. Again.

 

 

 

Also, what did I ever do to you to merit all the pointless inferred ad-hominem attacks here? Because of my opinion I'm "blatantly stupid", and because I left out two words in a quote I'm a "right prat". What kind of logic is that, anyway? I thought the topic said 'no flaming' - I guess I should have known that that is kind of impossible on boards like these. Sigh.

[Tetsuya]

Wow, this argument has become about cows.

 

 

 

Anyways, I'm pro-choice. But I usually try to stay out of abortion arguments. They're just wars of relative morals. Its impossible to find an absolute right or wrong.

[dwarfie76]

Except that we're both the same species (human) and we assume a similar level of self-awareness within similarly developed entities within the species, and, self-referencing, you're aware that you're self-aware.

 

Why only within the species? Why is the line of specification so significant to self awareness? I've seen cows react to stimulus, I've seen them nurture their calves, learn to avoid the electric fence etc. I can make the same assumptions about other organisms of the bovine world as I can about the human ones. You're trying to tell me that I can't say that a cow is aware of myself because I'm not a cow. If that's the case, the logical extension of your theory is that I can't state that anything other than myself is self-aware.

 

 

 

Additionally, how would you test an animal or creature for self-awareness, then? You're using that term very lightly here - it's not as simple as you're trying to make it sound.

 

There are a number of tests for self awareness. One of the simplest is to examine whether or not the animal recognises itself in a mirror. A chimpanzee will examine and play with it's reflection in the same way a human would, a cat on the otherhand will act as if another cat has been placed in front of it. I'm using the term for what it means, a recognition by an organism that it exists.

 

 

 

For me, self-awareness is defined by having the ability to know that 'you' are there, and the ability to reason about yourself. It would be up for discussion entirely to what extent a cow can reason, if at all, so I don't see how it'd make me stupid to propose that a cow is not self-aware. You also didn't provide any arguments for your 'point', I might add. Again.

 

Self awareness has nothing to do with the ability to reason. A cow doesn't need to be able to ask "why am I here" in order to know that it is indeed here. And yes, if you bothered to read my posts you would see that I did support my argument.

 

 

 

Also, what did I ever do to you to merit all the pointless inferred ad-hominem attacks here? Because of my opinion I'm "blatantly stupid", and because I left out two words in a quote I'm a "right prat". What kind of logic is that, anyway? I thought the topic said 'no flaming' - I guess I should have known that that is kind of impossible on boards like these. Sigh.

 

For a start I've neither instigated an ad-hominem attack on you, nor flamed you. An ad-hominem attack would be an attack on you rather than your arguments. Again, if you read my posts you will see that I referred to the concept of arguing that cows posess no self-awareness as "blatantly stupid", not you. And stated that if I was to misquote someone and then attack the misquoted argument rather than the actual one (Which is called a Straw Man Attack by the way) then I might be percieved as a "right prat". It seems that your understanding of Latin terms for logical fallacies is right up there with your understanding of philosophy and reading comprehension.

[Death_By_Pod]

 

How do you know that the cow is self-aware?

 

 

 

By going out and testing for self awareness, are you serious? Mirror test is the most common of these; a mark (dye) is placed on the animal and put in from of a mirror. The animal should be able to recognise that it is themself and not another animal to be considered self aware in this test. Although this isn't the perfect test for self awareness it does give us an indication that the animal has some level of self awareness if they react to the mirror as a mirror and not another animal.

 

 

 

Also despite common perception, pigeons are pretty intelligent and passed the mirror test for self awareness yet human babies fail it.

[Hannibal]

Except that we're both the same species (human) and we assume a similar level of self-awareness within similarly developed entities within the species, and, self-referencing, you're aware that you're self-aware.

 

Why only within the species? Why is the line of specification so significant to self awareness? I've seen cows react to stimulus, I've seen them nurture their calves, learn to avoid the electric fence etc. I can make the same assumptions about other organisms of the bovine world as I can about the human ones. You're trying to tell me that I can't say that a cow is aware of myself because I'm not a cow. If that's the case, the logical extension of your theory is that I can't state that anything other than myself is self-aware.

 

You can only ever be sure about yourself, yes. I'm simply saying it seems logical to assume that other members of the same species would tend to have similar capabilities. Strictly speaking, you are right that you can't state anything other than that you yourself are self-aware.

 

 

 

Reacting to stimuli, learning and taking care of others has very little to do with self-awareness. Robots can do all of the former, but have no self-awareness (in most cases, that is. Recently robots have been fabricated which do have some sense of "self-awareness", which is then optimistically defined as being able to recognize yourself in the mirror, which is not the philosophical or psychological meaning of the word (see below)).

 

 

 

Additionally, how would you test an animal or creature for self-awareness, then? You're using that term very lightly here - it's not as simple as you're trying to make it sound.

 

There are a number of tests for self awareness. One of the simplest is to examine whether or not the animal recognises itself in a mirror. A chimpanzee will examine and play with it's reflection in the same way a human would, a cat on the otherhand will act as if another cat has been placed in front of it. I'm using the term for what it means, a recognition by an organism that it exists.

 

And recognizing something in the mirror is enough for that? I can make a robot understand he's seeing himself in a mirror, that is, make him react to the general kind of pixels he'd see. That wouldn't make him understand anything about him/her/itself, so I don't consider that self-awareness. Recognizing something in the mirror is not quite the same as self-awareness, if only because self-awareness is not a black/white distinction (as you already implied saying that a cow had "rather more" self-awareness than a baby). So if self-awareness is not black and white, how can a mirror test suffice?

 

 

 

awareness of your own individuality

 

 

 

See also: http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/selfaware/node1.html

 

(not quoting it all because it's a lot of info)

 

 

 

Self-awareness is the ability to perceive one's own existence, including one's own traits, feelings and behaviors. In an epistemological sense, self-awareness is a personal understanding of the very core of one's own identity.

 

 

 

For me, self-awareness is defined by having the ability to know that 'you' are there, and the ability to reason about yourself. It would be up for discussion entirely to what extent a cow can reason, if at all, so I don't see how it'd make me stupid to propose that a cow is not self-aware. You also didn't provide any arguments for your 'point', I might add. Again.

 

Self awareness has nothing to do with the ability to reason. A cow doesn't need to be able to ask "why am I here" in order to know that it is indeed here.

 

How would anyone/anything be able to demonstrate self-awareness without reasoning? What use would it be to know something (eg, "I am"), and not be able to reason about it? How do you even think you can separate having knowledge and using that knowledge?

 

 

 

And yes, if you bothered to read my posts you would see that I did support my argument.

 

Humour me for a bit and quote your argument for claiming that it is stupid to say a cow isn't self-aware.

 

 

 

 

 

Also, what did I ever do to you to merit all the pointless inferred ad-hominem attacks here? Because of my opinion I'm "blatantly stupid", and because I left out two words in a quote I'm a "right prat". What kind of logic is that, anyway? I thought the topic said 'no flaming' - I guess I should have known that that is kind of impossible on boards like these. Sigh.

 

For a start I've neither instigated an ad-hominem attack on you, nor flamed you. An ad-hominem attack would be an attack on you rather than your arguments. Again, if you read my posts you will see that I referred to the concept of arguing that cows posess no self-awareness as "blatantly stupid", not you. And stated that if I was to misquote someone and then attack the misquoted argument rather than the actual one (Which is called a Straw Man Attack by the way) then I might be percieved as a "right prat". It seems that your understanding of Latin terms for logical fallacies is right up there with your understanding of philosophy and reading comprehension.

 

Looks like you conveniently missed the word "inferred" here. I suppose that can happen to anyone though.

 

 

 

If you want to lecture me about Latin terms, feel free to tell me what you call derogative comments about someone's knowledge or intellectual capabilities, if not ad-hominem attacks. (just so we're clear, I'm talking about that last sentence of your last post).

 

 

 

Death_By_Pod, I'd go as far as saying it is not only "not perfect", it's totally useless. First of all, whether an animal passes the test depends on your observer's highly subjective view of whether or not the animal is recognizing him/her/itself. Heck, for all we know babies are just not interested in themselves, spending 9 months alone in that womb must have bored it to death!

 

Second, as said above, it's a big grey line/area. You're not either self-aware or not self-aware.

 

Third, any kind of self-recognition doesn't necessarily mean self-awareness (see above point about robots).

 

Fourth, self-awareness as defined by psychology and/or philosophy is not just about physical recognition.

[Hannibal]

Wow, this argument has become about cows.

 

I personally think we're currently debating the nature of self-awareness, and how self-aware a fetus and/or baby really is.

 

 

 

Anyways, I'm pro-choice. But I usually try to stay out of abortion arguments. They're just wars of relative morals. Its impossible to find an absolute right or wrong.

 

 

 

So what should a government do if there's no right or wrong we all agree on? (let's not start talking about "absolute" rights or wrongs, that's an entire debate in its own right ;) )

[Rattica]

 

The theft angle makes it seem that you feel a fetus to be "property of" the mother in which case I have to ask at what point you feel a fetus progresses from being the mother's property to a being with it's own rights, and what makes you draw that line at that particular point?

 

 

 

When the foetus has a functioning brain; this occurs some time in the third trimester. I draw the line here because it is the organ which we associate human qualities with (life and consciousness) without it there isn't much the body can do other then exist because it is being nourished.

 

 

 

I think you hit the nail right on the head, it's so simple but makes so much sense!

 

In my opinion a foetus isn't a baby or a 'person' until it has a brain and for me a foetus with no brain is more like a 'potential' baby.

 

Killing a foetus (as it is living tissue although not a person) seems to me more like stopping a chain reaction. If you are allowed to stop that chain reaction by, morning after pill, condom, not going beyond 3rd base or not having sex at all then what's the big deal?

 

 

 

Also it's fascinating to see how far some people take (or not) what is reasonable. If people really view abortion as murder then incest and rape should be no excuse to abort and there should be no morning after pills.

 

Even if the baby will directly/indirectly kill the mother no abortion. If she has cancer then you should be prepared to deny her the appropriate treatments for the health of the baby.

 

Not only that but there would be no IVF treatments for a number of eggs are gathered from the woman, fertilised and 'put back in' so to speak as not all, if any, of the embryos will take to the uterus.

 

And just to top it off, anyone who has a known history of miscarriages who insist on getting pregnant time and time again only to miscarry for the umpteenth time really ought to be stopped.

 

 

 

I just don't understand how folks who are so against murder can let all that slide. I suppose as horrible as it is we are all technically murderers on the basis of all the starving, diseased, neglected people dieing out there when all that would save them is literally the leftovers from your plate to survive.

 

 

 

I'd never dream* of having laws against having children if you're this or that (I imagine you'd apply for a Child License, or License to Breed if there were) so I'm going to force somone to bear an unwanted child either.

 

 

 

*Unless we institute national clip programmes where EVERYONE is reversibly steralised, or chooses to be irreversibly steralised and has their eggs/sperms/spores or whatever frozen. Problem solved, and a couple decide they both want a child they pop along to the docs and get unclipped so there are no unwanted kids/child support payments. Although being (un)fair it would be far easier just to clip all the guys and give the girls condoms and pills.

 

I wonder how many sexually active guys would be resposible enough to have such a simple, quick and safe procedure done? Go on... please? It'd be helping humankind, except for the massive rises in STD's but at least then both men and woman who philander without regulation condoms and latex suits will both be equally miserble, itchy and oozy e.t.c

 

 

 

It would be expensive and most likely impossible to enforce and although it's kind of off topic (although it would prevent the need for most abortions) and I would go along with it as no one would ever be denied their right to be unclipped if they wanted a child.

 

 

 

This is a real headbanger of a topic to discuss and although my last braincell died and personally I'm rather sad for a multitude of reasons after reading as much as I can on this thread let's agree that prevention is better than cure.

 

We're part of society so let's look out for one another (to better spot the rapists and pervy incestors), learn more about sex ed and pass it on to others not in the know and support the science of weeding out the bad genes that cause distressing diseases e.t.c.

 

Ok thanks for putting up with the looong post but it makes sense to think of plans to help people not get into the position where they have to think about getting abortions in the first place.

 

Although I'll always be pro-choice and lobby for the National Clip Programme.

 

I'll get my coat... :(

[Death_By_Pod]

 

Reacting to stimuli, learning and taking care of others has very little to do with self-awareness. Robots can do all of the former, but have no self-awareness (in most cases, that is. Recently robots have been fabricated which do have some sense of "self-awareness", which is then optimistically defined as being able to recognize yourself in the mirror, which is not the philosophical or psychological meaning of the word (see below)).

 

 

 

And recognizing something in the mirror is enough for that? I can make a robot understand he's seeing himself in a mirror, that is, make him react to the general kind of pixels he'd see. That wouldn't make him understand anything about him/her/itself, so I don't consider that self-awareness. Recognizing something in the mirror is not quite the same as self-awareness, if only because self-awareness is not a black/white distinction (as you already implied saying that a cow had "rather more" self-awareness than a baby). So if self-awareness is not black and white, how can a mirror test suffice?

 

 

 

I'd go as far as saying it is not only "not perfect", it's totally useless. First of all, whether an animal passes the test depends on your observer's highly subjective view of whether or not the animal is recognizing him/her/itself. Heck, for all we know babies are just not interested in themselves, spending 9 months alone in that womb must have bored it to death!

 

Second, as said above, it's a big grey line/area. You're not either self-aware or not self-aware.

 

Third, any kind of self-recognition doesn't necessarily mean self-awareness (see above point about robots).

 

Fourth, self-awareness as defined by psychology and/or philosophy is not just about physical recognition.

 

 

 

Reacting to stimuli (such as the dot), learning and taking care of others does imply awareness, in order to react to the stimuli you need to recognise the image in the mirror is yourself and the actions in the mirror correspond to your actions and so on.

 

 

 

Robots have nothing to do with awareness according to your definition since robots have no self identity, no traits, feelings or behaviour; it has no phycology to be studied. Robots are a non biological extension of the animal that created them. Being able to create a robot implies that the creator is self aware not that the robot. The self awareness trait is transferred from the creator by programming the robots self awareness.

 

The robot will still fail the test because the robot canÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t tell if it is itself or another identical robot from looking in the mirror. It canÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t comprehend what the dot is doing on the surface; it isnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t inquisitive like a self aware animal.

 

 

 

It isnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t perfect because animals that donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t rely on sight are less likely to pass the test (eg. Dogs are better known for smelling), not that the test is some horrible failure as you seem to imply.

 

Did you read my post; they pass the test if they know the dot on the mirrors forehead corresponds to their own forehead (by way of rubbing/scratching/playing with the dot in the mirror), whatÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s subjective about that? Babies should realise there is something abnormal on their head and try to rub it off (but they donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t).

 

It isnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t physical recognition otherwise the animal would have thought their reflection is any other animal. You canÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t recognise yourself unless you know the qualities of that make you.

 

 

 

Go and take a look at what the mirror test is (itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s more then just seeing yourself in the mirror). (Apologies for grammar/spelling in advance, itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s late)

[Hannibal]

Argh. Death_by_pod: robots can have traits, feelings or behaviour. The fact that something is programmed doesn't detract from what it is. Surely you won't say "evolution/God and individual growth put every neuron in my brain where they are now, so it's not my identity but God's/nobody's"?

 

 

 

What a robot can and can't comprehend depends on how much knowledge was put into it and how much (if anything) it has learned since then.

 

 

 

As for reading your post, I did read it, though if I'm picky I might add that you only ever wrote that they need to recognize themselves in the mirror - leaving open how you would notice if they did. Either way, cognitive creatures can surely decide for themselves what they'll do? All I'm saying (and was saying, regarding this point) is that the test is not failsafe or objective.

 

 

 

Of course it is physical recognition, isn't the point of recognition that you manage to distinguish multiple (groups of) entities from eachother by their qualities? How is this not physical recognition?

 

 

 

I know the point of the mirror test, I'm simply saying the test is too simplistic and doesn't say much altogether, apart from: "The animal might have some level of self-awareness (or an itch wherever that dye was placed). We don't really know how much, but hey, at least it's doing better than a stone so far" versus "It doesn't seem like this animal is self-aware. Either that or it's not in the mood.". It's about as accurate as Freud's sexist interpretations of dreams. But I'm wandering off-topic now, so I guess I'll call this a post.