Just curious as to how many of you will cop to believing in this lunacy: It's pretty obvious to me that if anyone's self-awareness ought to be called into question, it's the author's, as he most likely believes human beings are creations of society rather than God - a conceit which of course is ideological nectar to the pro-death crowd.
Consciousness, being the awareness of reality, is likely present at birth and perhaps some time before this although the womb seems like it would be the closest thing to an awareness deprivation chamber. I wonder if the author simply doesn't understand properly what consciousness is. By the way, the article is over 3 years old.
A sensory deprivation chamber, maybe, but that wouldn't affect self-awareness at all. And besides, the fetus can hear as early as 16 weeks after conception. Say it ain't so.
Even is a fetus does not have "self awareness", perhaps it is just because the fetus is in a state of sleep. That does not justify killing it, just as it is not okay to kill a sleeping baby, or a hospital patient who has been in a coma for 2 months.
On the other hand, some wide awake and healthy adults can be killed in certain contexts (self defense, death penalty, military combat). There is something else at play here that might justify abortion as a right.
In all of these cases, the person killed has done something to justify homicide. However self-aware it may be, what can a fetus DO that justifies killing it? Do tell.
It's not lunacy. It's simple common sense but probably backed up with observation and some science. You believe, apparently, that human beings are created by God. Some may think that as outlandish a view as your view is of the author's claims.
When are you guys going to learn that the debate about abortion is over. It is legal, and that's never going to change. You're accomplishing nothing.
Interesting that you pick something I placed in front of you in another thread, in that one you called the author idiotic Christif Koch is Professor of Biology and Engineering at the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena and the Chief Scientific Officer of the Allen Institute for Brain Science in Seattle. I suspect he knows a little more on the subject than you .. however instead of just dismissing the article, why don't you try to prove it wrong.
Being an occupier of a position that the owner doesn't want them to have. .. or when a woman becomes pregnant does she no longer have ownership over her womb?
Using Einstein's definition of the term, maybe. Same coulda been said about the idea that blacks were subhuman in the 1800's. Hell, as far as that goes, there's more evidence for it now than there was then, because of the moral degeneracy that has been cultivated in the black community for the last few decades. That is neither surprising nor interesting. Sure, and in Germany the debate over the "Jewish problem" was over in 1932. Then what the hell is the pro-death crowd accomplishing by debating the issue? As if I didn't know. And justifiably so, obviously. He's also an idiot. He literally doesn't understand the first thing about it. I don't care about the article, just the assertion I quoted. Evidently the distinction between "being" and "doing" somehow escapes you. What a surprise. And in which the owner put it to begin with. She never had it in the first place, hth.
Just like all your other posts, this post is lacking any type of substance. Heck, you haven't even made a statement of your own here. In Yguy land, apparently all it takes to counter someone's statement, or back up your own, is an insult.
This OP is kinda nuts. A baby may have no concept of their own emotions or motivation but a lot of grownups don't either. But if you prick it with a needle it will feel pain and cry...so it is self aware. It is just a creature in a strange world where everything including themselves is new.
I also have heard of studies where they conclude that babies are natural born scientists. Like the experiment that happens when the baby drops the dish...over and over again to see what happens and how people react to it.
This is not about the post-born it is about the pre-born, you can prick a pre third trimester fetus and it won't feel pain, the necessary parts of the brain that interpret the singles from the nerves are not formed until the third trimester.
I never have understood how anyone could say that something else is not self aware. Other than non living objects. The only way to be completely sure is to live in the unborn body. All life has "irritability" so how can you say it feels no pain? Does science really know that much about the brain?
Pain isn't a mysterious force of nature. It's electrical signals, and electrical signals can be measured.
Electric signals can be measured but pain not so much. I know that if I get stung by a bee it does not hurt nearly as much as it did when I was a child. And after working in a foundry for 18 years burns hurt even less.
If people of your caliber didn't think so, I'd be worried. Isn't that what I said, Einstein? It might be right about everything else, but what I quoted is dead wrong. Impossible. Then surely I won't be hearing from you again, don't write if ya get work. Since the OP is saying the author of the linked article is nuts, it's not clear who you're talking about. Non sequitur. Not that it's germane to the abortion issue, but it should be obvious that self-awareness in humans is inseparable from conscience, which animals don't have.
If you kill an unborn child...because that is what an abortion is...you are destroying any potential that this being has. So if you take offence at someone defending the rights of a person unborn...even if you claim it is not a person....you destroy a lifetime of potential. I am agnostic and religion does not even figure in my thinking but the rights of all people...potential or not...should be defended.
But you deny her rights to her body by denying her the right to kill at nine months...late term abortions. Many pro-aborts here think abortion is wrong after viability. So that is denying her bodily rights. So address that. - - - Updated - - - Reported
I work with a lot of people who are agnostic...that rely on what science says. And science defends life...it defines it. Abortion kills a living human being.
Fugazi said, What are your qualifications? None. Have you ever had an abortion to know? What a filthy thing to say......??/in the wind. Is that an attack on a position? Or a person? Attacking again....position or person? This is absolutely uncalled for. And the fact that it has not been taken off already...is absolutely ridiculous. I get written up for one little tiny thing...and the mods let this one go. Unbelievable. Your reported again. Attacking again....the person.
I dislike this argument because it paints abstinence as immoral. Egg cells and sperm are potential people too. If women and men choose not to have sex, potential persons are lost forever. Why should the potential persons lost due to abstinence be worth less than the potential persons lost due to abortion? I think the "potential person" argument is absurd or at the very least has rather impractical consequences. It doesn't seem wise or desirable to maximize the number of children we have at all cost.
