Do you think I could just leave this part blank and it'd be okay? We're just going to replace the whole thing with a header image anyway, right?
You are not logged in.
XxAtillaxX wrote:What difference is there between a flower and a fetus that has no, and never had, cognition?
The difference is pretty obvious. Wait a few weeks and that fetus will be cognitive. Wait as long as you like, that flower's not going anywhere.
You wait a few weeks and cause near unbearable pain to the mother who would rather not have to go through it?
How very moral of you.
*u stinky*
Offline
Different55 wrote:XxAtillaxX wrote:What difference is there between a flower and a fetus that has no, and never had, cognition?
The difference is pretty obvious. Wait a few weeks and that fetus will be cognitive. Wait as long as you like, that flower's not going anywhere.
You wait a few weeks and cause near unbearable pain to the mother who would rather not have to go through it?
How very moral of you.
Alright you've either got to be trolling me or you really need to work on your recall skills. I'm not debating you pro life vs pro choice, get off that track. At no point have I stated my own opinions on this subject. I'm asking you why choose cognition as the cut off over any other possible cut off point? Skullz said it better than I can:
why is cognition used as criteria for deciding whether to kill something or not?
"Sometimes failing a leap of faith is better than inching forward"
- ShinsukeIto
Offline
I'm asking you why choose cognition as the cut off over any other possible cut off point? Skullz said it better than I can:
skullz17 wrote:why is cognition used as criteria for deciding whether to kill something or not?
Cognition is, by the very definition, the inability to sense, to experience, to have thought.
This is the very thing that separates living entities from non-living entities. If it is a non-living entity then it is not unethical to destroy it.
You are in-fact alive by the common interpretation of the term, when you have cognition.
Anything further is pure philosophical nonsense, such as the ethicality of preventing an action that would otherwise occur.
*u stinky*
Offline
Cognition is, by the very definition, the inability to sense, to experience, to have thought.
This is the very thing that separates living entities from non-living entities. If it is a non-living entity then it is not unethical to destroy it.
Why do you say that? Like I mentioned before, we had another discussion on whether or not viruses counted as life and nowhere in that conversation did thought come up as one of the requirements for something to count as living.
"Sometimes failing a leap of faith is better than inching forward"
- ShinsukeIto
Offline
XxAtillaxX wrote:This is the very thing that separates living entities from non-living entities.
Why do you say that? Like I mentioned before, we had another discussion on whether or not viruses counted as life and nowhere in that conversation did thought come up as one of the requirements for something to count as living.
It is the commonly accepted interpretation of the term living, because it is what is scientifically distinguishable from mere primitive chemical processes.
Viruses do not count as living by any standard, they are acellular, they replicate by means of infecting host cells.
*u stinky*
Offline
Viruses do not count as living by any standard, they are acellular, they replicate by means of infecting host cells.
I-
I know. I'm not bringing that discussion back up. Are you feeling okay? I'm saying that at no point in that conversation did cognition come up. Because cognition is not what separates the living from the dead. Where did you get that idea into your head?
"Sometimes failing a leap of faith is better than inching forward"
- ShinsukeIto
Offline
Because cognition is not what separates the living from the dead. Where did you get that idea into your head?
What do dead humans lack? Cognition.
What do dead humans retain temporarily despite being buried 10 feet under? Cells, viruses, etc.
*u stinky*
Offline
Different55 wrote:Because cognition is not what separates the living from the dead. Where did you get that idea into your head?
What do dead humans lack? Cognition.
What do dead humans retain temporarily despite being buried 10 feet under? Cells, viruses, etc.
Alright cool thanks for confirming that you're trolling, totally wasted my time there. Good one m8 you got me.
Just in case you're not trolling, a brain dead individual is still alive, and a massive multi-cellular organism can die without each individual cell immediately dying as well.
"Sometimes failing a leap of faith is better than inching forward"
- ShinsukeIto
Offline
Alright cool thanks for confirming that you're trolling, totally wasted my time there. Good one m8 you got me.
Just in case you're not trolling, a brain dead individual is still alive, and a massive multi-cellular organism can die without each individual cell immediately dying as well.
I'm trolling? What, are you saying brain dead humans have cognition? You asked for the difference and I provided it.
A brain dead individual lacks cognition, hence they're dead, they're legally and clinically considered dead.
*u stinky*
Offline
I'm trolling? What, are you saying dead humans have cognition? You asked for the difference and I provided it.
A brain dead individual lacks cognition, hence they're dead, they're legally and clinically considered dead.
Okay I dragged it on a little longer with that last post but you are definitely trolling and I fell for it again.
"Sometimes failing a leap of faith is better than inching forward"
- ShinsukeIto
Offline
Okay I dragged it on a little longer with that last post but you are definitely trolling and I fell for it again.
I'm honestly not. If you're unable to provide any refutation however, so be it.
*u stinky*
Offline
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. I guess let's go for a third time.
Different55 wrote:Alright cool thanks for confirming that you're trolling, totally wasted my time there. Good one m8 you got me.
Just in case you're not trolling, a brain dead individual is still alive, and a massive multi-cellular organism can die without each individual cell immediately dying as well.
I'm trolling? What, are you saying brain dead humans have cognition? You asked for the difference and I provided it.
Did you purposefully pick the single most idiotic interpretation possible out of the first half of what I said and then ignore the rest? I didn't ask for any difference I asked you how you got the idea that cognition = life into your head. That idea is unquestionably false and you never answered the actual question I asked. You seemingly made up your own question and responded to that.
A brain dead individual lacks cognition, hence they're dead, they're legally and clinically considered dead.
Legally? Yeah. Clinically? No.
Clinical death is the medical term for cessation of blood circulation and breathing, the two necessary criteria to sustain human and many other organisms' lives. It occurs when the heart stops beating in a regular rhythm, a condition called cardiac arrest.
Maybe you meant biological death except you can still lack brain function while still fulfilling all the criteria needed to qualify as biologically living. Brain dead people still maintain homeostasis, they metabolize, they're still made out of cells, they can still grow, they can adapt, they can reproduce, and they respond to stimuli. That's everything. Fulfill those criteria and congratulations you're alive. You might have noticed cognition missing from that list. That'd be because no sane person will tell you cognition is a requirement of life.
"Sometimes failing a leap of faith is better than inching forward"
- ShinsukeIto
Offline
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. I guess let's go for a third time.
Did you purposefully pick the single most idiotic interpretation possible out of the first half of what I said and then ignore the rest of the sentence? I didn't ask for any difference I asked you how you got the idea that cognition = life into your head. That idea is unquestionably false and you never answered the actual question I asked. You seemingly made up your own question and responded to that.
XxAtillaxX wrote:A brain dead individual lacks cognition, hence they're dead, they're legally and clinically considered dead.
Legally? Yeah. Clinically? No.
"Legally? Yeah. Clinically? No."
If you are in a clinic, they will assess biological life factors rather than the supply of oxygen to determine legal death - the invention of the ventilator in the 50s should have revised the definition of clinical death.
I do not subscribe to using outdated definitions, I'm purely in favour of revising definitions to accurately match their intention. I'm very aware of this and I've stated this previously, excluding circulatory death.
It's rather pedantic that you find an issue with definitions when you understand that both determine the legal death status.
If you do not have white matter within the brain, you are incapable of cognition despite having brain cells - you are a vegetable and are considered legally dead.
The legal interpretation of a non-living entity is primarily what affects abortion as a legal procedure.
*u stinky*
Offline
XxAtillaxX wrote:no burden upon the mother
what kind of burden would constitute an abortion, in your opinion?
The agony of childbirth as well as years of raising children, it isn't easy and it's very time consuming.
Additionally, abortion isn't painless either, it's not preferable in any way to contraception.
*u stinky*
Offline
Different55 wrote:Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. I guess let's go for a third time.
Did you purposefully pick the single most idiotic interpretation possible out of the first half of what I said and then ignore the rest of the sentence? I didn't ask for any difference I asked you how you got the idea that cognition = life into your head. That idea is unquestionably false and you never answered the actual question I asked. You seemingly made up your own question and responded to that.
XxAtillaxX wrote:A brain dead individual lacks cognition, hence they're dead, they're legally and clinically considered dead.
Legally? Yeah. Clinically? No.
"Legally? Yeah. Clinically? No."
If you are in a clinic, they will assess biological life factors rather than the supply of oxygen to determine legal death - the invention of the ventilator in the 50s should have revised the definition of clinical death.
I do not subscribe to using outdated definitions, I'm purely in favour of revising definitions to accurately match their intention. I'm very aware of this and I've stated this previously, excluding circulatory death.It's rather pedantic that you find an issue with definitions when you understand that both determine the legal death status.
If you do not have white matter within the brain, you are incapable of cognition despite having brain cells - you are a vegetable and are considered legally dead.The legal interpretation of a non-living entity is primarily what affects abortion as a legal procedure.
...No, no it's not. Legal death has even less to do with abortion than cognition does for life. Legal death ONLY involves dying, it has no idea whether or not something is alive in the first place. Whether or not something is alive is a question for biology, and biology does not care whether or not something is cognizant. And still you never answered the question: What gave you the insane idea that cognition is a requirement of life?
"Sometimes failing a leap of faith is better than inching forward"
- ShinsukeIto
Offline
...No, no it's not. Legal death has even less to do with abortion than cognition does for life. Legal death ONLY involves dying, it has no idea whether or not something is alive in the first place. Whether or not something is alive is a question for biology, and biology does not care whether or not something is cognizant. And still you never answered the question: What gave you the insane idea that cognition is a requirement of life?
I had never said it is a requirement for life as a whole, I said it's the common interpretation of life, as in, life on the macroscopic scale, i.e. humans.
Abortion, like any other medical procedure, is one performed legally and is subject to legal interpretation of what is considered living. I didn't say death either.
Which is why, in the past, abortion has been illegal in most parts of the world, including the United States.
*u stinky*
Offline
I can't really add much to the discussion above, so I'll just pettily continue this.
Objective reality is a thing. But opinions aren't part of it. Lets say you think I'm a moron. Whether or not that is true isn't part of this discussion. But, there are people who think otherwise. Nobody's right here because it's a matter of opinion until we get a lot consistent evidence one way or the other. And still, if I change, but not too much, it's still up to opinion. "Objectivity is a central philosophical concept, related to reality and truth, which has been variously defined by sources. Generally, objectivity means the state or quality of being true even outside of a subject's individual biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings."<-- my good friend Wikipedia.
Of course my sleep analogy is absurd. That's why I chose not to use it, and instead showed it as a bad argument. I figured in my lil brain that you have LESS activity. A stupid idea, to be sure.
It isn't of any offense to me for someone to have unscientific reasoning.
I draw the line as soon as you attempt to force your unscientific beliefs upon the systems which affect everyone, including those who do not share your beliefs.
Oh. I get it. Everything you say is scientific, and must be treated as true. EVERYTHING makes sense now. Thanks for clearing that one up.
Your 'drawing the line' effects both sides. There are probably bunches of people who are pro-life who hate your opinions. So forcing abortion upon the systems that effect everyone is stupid, because nobody will ever agree to it.
'isn't of any offence to me for someone to have unscientific reasoning'
They are unable to draw the line because they are simply morons who lack the basic understanding of neurology.
They refuse to acknowledge that there is demonstrably no neural activity present, therefore it is not living by any standard.
They refuse to acknowledge that there is demonstrably no nociceptors present, therefore there is no equivalent pain stimuli.
Call me clueless, but that seems like you're at least slightly annoyed, if not offended.
Pretend I didn't exist until now
All hail me, the king of insensitive jerks
Woot if you hate me
Offline
I can't really add much to the discussion above, so I'll just pettily continue this.
Objective reality is a thing. But opinions aren't part of it. Lets say you think I'm a moron. Whether or not that is true isn't part of this discussion. But, there are people who think otherwise. Nobody's right here because it's a matter of opinion until we get a lot consistent evidence one way or the other. And still, if I change, but not too much, it's still up to opinion. "Objectivity is a central philosophical concept, related to reality and truth, which has been variously defined by sources. Generally, objectivity means the state or quality of being true even outside of a subject's individual biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings."<-- my good friend Wikipedia.Of course my sleep analogy is absurd. That's why I chose not to use it, and instead showed it as a bad argument. I figured in my lil brain that you have LESS activity. A stupid idea, to be sure.
XxAtillaxX wrote:It isn't of any offense to me for someone to have unscientific reasoning.
I draw the line as soon as you attempt to force your unscientific beliefs upon the systems which affect everyone, including those who do not share your beliefs.Oh. I get it. Everything you say is scientific, and must be treated as true. EVERYTHING makes sense now. Thanks for clearing that one up.
Your 'drawing the line' effects both sides. There are probably bunches of people who are pro-life who hate your opinions. So forcing abortion upon the systems that effect everyone is stupid, because nobody will ever agree to it.
The majority of pro-life stances are largely unscientific, immoral and have been largely discredited, hence abortions are legal in most modern countries.
I would recommend reading this, which underlines the most common arguments.
"Objectivity is a central philosophical concept, related to reality and truth, which has been variously defined by sources.
Generally, objectivity means the state or quality of being true even outside of a subject's individual biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings."
You see that? Reality and truth outside your feelings and backed up by evidence.
Now then, what evidence do you have to support the notion that fetuses have consciousness before ~30 weeks?
Keep in mind, the vast majority of abortions take place no later than 20 weeks, most typically are within the first 12 weeks.
*u stinky*
Offline
I had never said it is a requirement for life as a whole, I said it's the common interpretation of life, as in, life on the macroscopic scale, i.e. humans.
Still not true. Ask anyone other than yourself. Nobody thinks that thought is required for life, even on the macroscopic scale. Unless you're living in some brain worshipping cult I don't see how you could ever get that idea into your head.
I didn't say death either.
A brain dead individual lacks cognition, hence they're dead, they're legally and clinically considered dead.
A brain dead individual lacks cognition, hence they're legally dead. Biologically and clinically they're alive. Cognition does not matter.
Abortion, like any other medical procedure, is one performed legally and is subject to legal interpretation of what is considered living.
The legal interpretation doesn't even matter when we're discussing this, we're discussing abortion not the current state of abortion in the law. If you want to bring in the law's reasoning for drawing its line at cognition then for the love of all that is good in the world do it, that's all I wanted from the very first post. Reasoning. Why cognition over any other point in time?
"Sometimes failing a leap of faith is better than inching forward"
- ShinsukeIto
Offline
@Atilla
I haven't even stated much of my opinion and you assume I'm pro-life? That isn't very fair
I'd like to know if there is a good deal of evidence supports that fetuses have consciousness after 20-ish weeks. After that, I might state my full opinion, having all of the facts in order.
Pretend I didn't exist until now
All hail me, the king of insensitive jerks
Woot if you hate me
Offline
XxAtillaxX wrote:I had never said it is a requirement for life as a whole, I said it's the common interpretation of life, as in, life on the macroscopic scale, i.e. humans.
Still not true. Ask anyone other than yourself. Nobody thinks that thought is required for life, even on the macroscopic scale. Unless you're living in some brain worshipping cult I don't see how you could ever get that idea into your head.
I've only seen the religious portray life anything different than cognition by way of the advanced processes within the brain.
XxAtillaxX wrote:I didn't say death either.
XxAtillaxX wrote:A brain dead individual lacks cognition, hence they're dead, they're legally and clinically considered dead.
A brain dead individual lacks cognition, hence they're legally dead. Biologically and clinically they're alive. Cognition does not matter.
They are as alive as a flower is, and I'm not against killing flowers.
XxAtillaxX wrote:Abortion, like any other medical procedure, is one performed legally and is subject to legal interpretation of what is considered living.
The legal interpretation doesn't even matter when we're discussing this, we're discussing abortion not the current state of abortion in the law. If you want to bring in the law's reasoning for drawing its line at cognition then for the love of all that is good in the world do it, that's all I wanted from the very first post. Reasoning. Why cognition over any other point in time?
I'm not against killing flowers, therefore I'm not against killing undeveloped fetuses.
@Atilla
I havzn't even stated much of my opinion and you assume I'm pro-life? That isn't very fair
I'd like to know if there is a good deal of evidence supports that fetuses have consciousness after 20-ish weeks. After that, I might state my full opinion, having all of the facts in order.
I haven't made the assumption, it doesn't matter to me very much what you personally believe as long as it's not impacting the lives of others, which it isn't.
I would suggest this citation.
excerpt: "In this paper we attempt to sharpen and to provide an answer to the question of when human beings first become conscious. Since it is relatively uncontentious that a capacity for raw sensation precedes and underpins all more sophisticated mental capacities, our question is tantamount to asking when human beings first have experiences with sensational content. Two interconnected features of our argument are crucial. First, we argue that experiences with sensational content are supervenient on facts about electrical activity in the cerebral cortex which can be ascertained through EEG readings. Second, we isolate from other notions of a‘functioning brain’that which is required to underpin the view that a cortex is functioning in a way which could give rise to rudimentary conscious experiences. We investigate the development in the human fetus of the anatomical and chemical pathways which underpin (immature) cortical activity and the growth and maturation of the electrical circuitry specifically associated with sensational content in adult experience. We conclude (tentatively) that a fetus becomes conscious at about 30 to 35 weeks after conception; an answer based on a careful analysis of EEG readings at various stages of cortical development. Finally, we survey the possible ethical ramifications of our answer."
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 … 100.x/full
There are other citations available that affirm this.
http://www.nature.com/pr/journal/v65/n3 … 0950a.html
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/f … cle/201429
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamane … act/574959
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar … 7499700292
http://www.factcheck.org/2015/05/does-a … -20-weeks/
*u stinky*
Offline
I'm not against killing flowers, therefore I'm not against killing undeveloped fetuses.
That's not an answer. And there is a difference. The flower will never become cognizant, the fetus will in a few short weeks.
If you want to bring in the law's reasoning for drawing its line at cognition then for the love of all that is good in the world do it, that's all I wanted from the very first post. Reasoning. Why cognition over any other point in time?
Answer the question.
"Sometimes failing a leap of faith is better than inching forward"
- ShinsukeIto
Offline
XxAtillaxX wrote:I'm not against killing flowers, therefore I'm not against killing undeveloped fetuses.
That's not an answer. And there is a difference. The flower will never become cognizant, the fetus will in a few short weeks.
Different55 wrote:If you want to bring in the law's reasoning for drawing its line at cognition then for the love of all that is good in the world do it, that's all I wanted from the very first post. Reasoning. Why cognition over any other point in time?
Answer the question.
It doesn't matter if the fetus will if you wait long enough, it currently isn't therefore it isn't unethical.
Additionally, forcibly subjecting women to unwanted near unbearable pain is unethical, let alone forcing them to spend years of their life caring for it.
I've provided the reason: cognition in humans is required to be considered alive legally.
*u stinky*
Offline
Additionally, forcibly subjecting women to unwanted near unbearable pain is unethical, let alone forcing them to spend years of their life caring for it.
I've never said I was pro-life. Just because it will become cognizant doesn't mean it immediately becomes bad to abort it at any time, I'm just saying that equating it to a flower is dumb because there is a massive difference between the two. Just because I recognize that difference does not immediately make me pro-life, this is the second time this has happened.
I've provided the reason: cognition in humans is required to be considered alive legally.
No. Atilla, that's not a reason. All you're doing is saying "I don't know why, but some other people do and I trust them pretty well." Yes, I know that the highly qualified people behind the law drew their line at cognition but I want to know why they drew it there. They weren't able to run away and say "I-IT'S THE LAW" so what did they say when asked "Where do we draw the line?"
"Sometimes failing a leap of faith is better than inching forward"
- ShinsukeIto
Offline
[ Started around 1732403513.037 - Generated in 0.159 seconds, 12 queries executed - Memory usage: 1.98 MiB (Peak: 2.33 MiB) ]