I have no need to state my position to you CM, as I have done on numerous occasions and you know very well the reasons why a number of pro-choice people have the stance they do .. just because you are at the extreme edge of your dogma doesn't mean others are.
You really need to read the thread correctly, I think you must just look for my name and then don't bother to read all the comments .. I have not said what my qualification are .. in fact I said that the author of the article I linked to is more qualified than myself or the other guy. Pissing in the wind is not an attack on anyone, go look it up .. educate yourself. Yet again you fail to read the other comments prior to this one .. I can't be bothered to respond to your personal vendetta against me, you are not worth it. nope, an opinion, just like your opinion of calling others murderers .. perhaps I should start reporting you every time you say that.
Is self-awareness that important? It is just one of the attributes of consciousness, and I doubt babies are self-aware until long after birth. An entitity does not need to be self-aware to be sentient, in the same way that it does not need to be sapient to be sentient. And I dont like this fixation on consciousness in a strict sense, because even unconscious humans are worthy of protection. Id rather emphasise the presence of higher mind, encoded in the structure of neural network in cortex, regardless of whether it happens to be active (conscious) or not (unconscious).
and of course you are entitled to your opinion . .however the presence of sentience is important in the debate on abortion, as is the ability to be independent of the woman - ie to take in air to oxygenate blood, to infuse food to fuel the body systems, to be able to process the nerve signals associated with pain.
If you think not, you're posting in the wrong thread. Because...? We are not discussing generic "entities", we are discussing human beings, whose capacity for self-awareness is what distinguishes their sentience from that of animals which we (PETA fruitcakes excepted) think nothing of killing and eating. If you think a person who manifests no outward signs of consciousness is necessarily devoid of self-awareness, your understanding of the human psyche leaves much to be desired. So how do you square that with your pronouncement above that sapience is irrelevant?
Because I think self-awareness is relatively an advanced mental feat. And babies dont pass the mirror test before 18 months.I really dont think foetii and newborns are self-aware. Oh please. Humans are animals and there are many animals that are more intelligent than very young infants. We are distinguished from animals by sapience, and there is no qualitative and principial difference between consciousness of higher animals and human infants. Humans are not special. Not necessarily, but often they are. And your condescending act is completely unwarranted. Why, its not in conflict. By "higher mind" I meant higher than vegetative and subconscious stuff.
Then you obviously don't know what it is, because it's not a "mental feat" at all. It's a gift that no one ever gave himself by any exertion of mental effort, which is in fact inimical to self-awareness. That is a test of corporeal awareness, not self-awareness. Speak for yourself, if you don't mind. So you've already forgotten what the subject is. I can't say I'm terribly impressed by yours right at the moment. Who cares about "often" when the discussion is about elementary principles? It's nothing like an act. You clearly have no understanding of the subject matter, wherefore I find myself in a position of superior knowledge by default. This being the case, I can hardly converse with you at all without being condescending in a pedagogical sense.
Skippy the only person I called a murderer was ME. But your position is hypocritical and you have a vile mouth...who would say...p in the wind. How vulgar. And you did verbally attack another poster...but then your not held to the same rules that those who are pro-life are...just a fact.
If you are pro-abortion for the simple reason that it is the womans body,...then it is very very hypocritical to take her rights away...but some of you pro-aborts do just that. You cant take someones bodily rights away...or can you? You tell me I can't....and then you turn around and do what you say I have no right to do. HYPOCRITICAL....NO OTHER TERM FITS.. And you know it...but won't admit to it.
The fact is we are not debating just eggs....or just sperm alone...we are debating when they meet and are fertilized and become..nothing potential, but another real human life. You are pro-abortion.
I would imagine infants, from the time they take their first breath start to become self aware of their own state. Emotions and motivations are a little more complex though and I think it takes time to learn those.
By the way, Is a tulip self aware? It opens and closes and turns according to the sun. Is it self aware? It's obvioulsy aware of it's surroundings. Can it be proven that a tulip is not self aware, keep in mind that human awareness is uniquely human just a tulip awareness would be uniquely tulip. Would cutting a bouquet of tulips consitute mass murder?
And why exactly do you "imagine" it takes that long, when they normally can hear 4 months before that? Maybe not, but it can be said with absolute confidence that no tulip has ever manifested any self-awareness... ...so I wouldn't lose any sleep over that.
Please quote me where I have ever said that I am pro-choice simply because its the womans body, that is your projection of what pro-choice is all about, not mine or the majority of pro-choice people . .do some actual research and see what it really means, just as I have done to see the variance in the pro-life stance .. yours is the extreme of the pro-life position, just as there are those at the extreme of the pro-choice side. I really don't have a problem with your zealous nature because I know you are only part of a very small minority with little or no credence in the very real debate on abortion.
If logically you think that a baby not being self aware gives you the right to take its life. Then logically putting someone under (because they would not be self aware) such as ether or some other drug would it be okay to "abort" them? Of course not...that would be murder no matter what the relationship. I just listened to a program talking about brain research...there is very little that is truely known about the brain. They do have some idea as to what part of the brain is responsable for some function but as far as wiring (nerves) they know very little.
If ya want to know if something has self-awareness just ask it...if it can answer...well, there ya go!
Fact not in evidence. Moreover, the case of Zack Dunlap, who claimed he heard the physician pronouncing him brain dead, might be the counterexample that proves otherwise.
Since you've not defined "self aware" you really don't have a basis for a discussion. Can you lay out an objective definition of "self aware" then provide objective evidence that an infant, at birth or before, possesses these traits? If self awareness is having senses (sight, hearing, touch) and the ability to react to sensory input then an infant is every bit as "self aware" as a chicken, a pig, or a cow.
I am going not even going to consider this objection. When someone tells me they died and came back i ask them one question....did you s**t your pants?
If you know what "self" means and you know what "aware" means, and you can't figure it out from there, do be kind enough to get the Hell out of my thread, TIA. Which it isn't, obviously. I never made that claim. The attending physician pronounced him dead, but the relevant point here is that he said there was no brain activity, which would mean Dunlap was self-aware absent any brain activity.
Being self-aware is only part of the equation, you must also allow for sentience and life independence. What scientist do know is that the nerves are pretty much fully in place by around 9 weeks, however the necessary connections to the fetal brain are not fully formed before 24 weeks - this study was undertaken by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists in response to a request from the Commons health select committee when a motion was tabled to lower the viability timescale from 24 weeks to 20 weeks - http://www.rcog.org.uk/news/rcog-release-rcog-updates-its-guidance or the full report can be found here in pdf format - http://www.rcog.org.uk/files/rcog-corp/RCOGFetalAwarenessWPR0610.pdf and while it deals quite specifically with the subject of pain, it does show that necessary parts of the brain structure are not fully in place and formed before 24 weeks (This could be one of the reasons why a very high proportion of preterm births have mental disabilities) What the pro-life stance does not do is show that ANY fetus prior to 24 weeks has a brain function that could be interpreted as Self-aware or sentient.
I take it then you cannot or will not provide any definition and therefor cannot provide any objective evidence that an infant at birth possesses anything that can reasonably be defined as "self awareness."
A fetus is not self aware, it doesn't even know it exists. It cannot know that abortion is danger, and 'run' away from the scapel or whatever, it has no concept of danger.
Maybe. But is there any evidence newborns are self-aware? Please provide some. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infant_cognitive_development So let me rephrase: there are many animals that are more (self)-aware than very young infants. Do you have a point, or not? Most people with no signs of consciousness are unconscious and not self-aware. If you want to deny this widely accepted fact, then better come up with some extraordinary evidence.
