That is consciousness as we have it. Animals with only one cell have some level of consciousness. Given how human development progresses, it follows that consciousness evolves rather than appears suddenly. Actually, we are all biological machines on a physical level. Consciousness and self-awareness are, for the purposes of science, biological phenomena.

__________________
"I am a Tory Anarchist. I should like every one to go about doing just as he pleased- short of altering any of the things to which I have grown accustomed." (Max Beerbohm)

That is such an expansive definition of consciousness as to be meaningless. Very few people would consider the consciousness of a single-cell organism to be true consciousness in any meaningful sense.

Possibly. But just because it emerges gradually does not mean that it is present from the beginning.

Agreed. And when the biological underpinnings necessary for consciousness are absent, consciousness cannot be present.

I'll try some other metaphors. One circuit is not a computer. It takes millions of circuits, linked together and coupled to memory, ROM and an electrical supply. A pile of silicon may be a potential computer chip, but it is not a computer chip. A cotton plant is not a shirt.

__________________
Man up.

I don't think that the majority defines whether consciousness is meaningful or not. All that matters to me is whether consciousness exists. The last statement is true if an unborn baby must have a brain to have any form of consciousness- even a very primitive kind- but I see no evidence that an unborn child couldn't have some form of consciousness with fewer cells. In fact, if single-celled animals have a consciousness, then the overwhelming probability is that single-celled humans (zygotes) do as well.

__________________
"I am a Tory Anarchist. I should like every one to go about doing just as he pleased- short of altering any of the things to which I have grown accustomed." (Max Beerbohm)

By the way, if consciousness starts at 24 weeks, how could this be the case (this is not a pro-life site)?

You should feel baby's first kicks after about 16 weeks.

http://www.baby-talk.co.uk/baby_kicking.htm

__________________
"I am a Tory Anarchist. I should like every one to go about doing just as he pleased- short of altering any of the things to which I have grown accustomed." (Max Beerbohm)

By the way, I have been stating that consciousness is necessary for personhood to exist. I was incorrect about that. I thought of this analogy. If a person, hypothetically, had always been in a coma but alive, it would clearly be wrong to kill that person. Therefore, since a zygote, whether the zygote has consciousness at conception or not, will have a consciousness in the future, abortion is murder regardless. The definition of personhood is therefore genetic distinctness (if a genetically distinct being has human DNA, of course).

__________________
"I am a Tory Anarchist. I should like every one to go about doing just as he pleased- short of altering any of the things to which I have grown accustomed." (Max Beerbohm)

I never said or implied that. You said this: And I simply stated that a fetus cannot control it's own body.

So if the child being born would result in the mother's death, which would take precedence?

I am against abortion except for when the birth would result in the Mother's death and when conception is a result of rape, then I believe that no-one has the right to tell a woman she cannot have an abortion. I do not believe we should ban abortion, but that we should increase awareness and availability of other options (e.g adoption) and also give people, teenagers especially, more information about, and access to, contraception.

__________________
It's the difference between suicide and slow capitulation... - Jim Morrison

One thing Michigan does is allow a woman who does not want a baby to leave it at any hospital, police station, or fire department- no questions asked. Unfortunately word must not get around. People still abandon babies that they don't want in shocking numbers. I just heard about this law a couple days ago.

__________________
"It's never over... BOY!"
The Tall Man, Phantasm III

It can control it in the same way a sleeping person can. The fact that it cant move around on it's own doesnt make it the property of the mother.

Go back to my conjoined twin example...short answer: yes it is reasonable to separate yourself if your own life is at risk in both situations.

It is not the child's fault that it was the product of a rape. Why is it less of a person if it was the product of rape or incest?

It is not just about the woman's right to her body...it is about the child's right to exist. The mother does not have the right to kill a child. The only reasonable exception, IMO, is if her own life is at risk.

That will not solve the core issue. The core issue is this: is the child a person or is it property? it cant be both. Right?

I am pro-life. I dont agree with his definition either. And the fact that it will have a consciousness in the future is irrelevant to me. Squashing a zygote is not remotely as bad as killing a newborn baby. They are obviously not the same thing.

__________________
My Political Blog (Last post Feb 14) - My MySpace Page

If a person is unconscious and doesn't realize that they are being killed, is it okay to kill them? The answer is an obvious "no", so I realized that the net result of killing a zygote and killing a grown adult is the same: One person has been murdered.

__________________
"I am a Tory Anarchist. I should like every one to go about doing just as he pleased- short of altering any of the things to which I have grown accustomed." (Max Beerbohm)

The analogy is not accurate, because even someone in a deep coma has brain activity. Unconscious people can still dream. A zygote has no brain.

__________________
My Political Blog (Last post Feb 14) - My MySpace Page