|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sun Mar 04, 2007 11:27 am
I think it's pretty obvious that a blastocyst doesn't have any consciousness, feelings, or desire to live. I could be wrong about that, and if there is one day evidence to the contrary, I will change my beliefs.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 04, 2007 11:31 am
their point is, though, that it is still alive and a human, and will, if left to it's devices, grow into a full, living human. just as the fetus chociers call no more than useless cells. Not saying i agree, not saying i disagree... i don't really know about stem cell research. there ARE many unused, already-removed feti which could be used instead of left to rot. i don't think it's good to go after MORE feti to test with, as there are other sources of stem cells. cord blood, bone marrow, the likes. and i heard that the placenta holds a ton of them which are usually discarded after birth or something, doctors were looking into that one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 04, 2007 11:34 am
Yes, they should go after already-existing sources.
My argument against abortion isn't the "left to its own devices" thing. It's that the baby is conscious, can feel pain, and has a desire to live.
Though, I was bothered when I heard that the "morning-after pill" stops implantation. That seems wrong to me somehow. But, I also have a problem with excessive drug use, so maybe that is what bothers me about it. I don't plan on using any kind of birth control drugs, ever.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 04, 2007 11:36 am
None of that matters to me, its a all superficial, constructs is the word for it. Feelings, desires, and consciousness is somthign that can not be prooven to exist wiht out the use of philosophy and ideology and personal opinoin. All that matter is that there is a living human involved.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 04, 2007 2:09 pm
You have to have a reason to think the human life is important, especially if you think human life is more important than other life.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 04, 2007 2:16 pm
Human life is important because it's alive. Once alive, it deserves the right to live untill it becomes a danger to the lives of others, if that happens that is. Since i refuse to accept constructs such as feelings, consciousness, sentience, etc, as an excuse as to how we're some how better then other beings, I cant see how human life is better then any other life.
Oh, and Rilian. Do you agree with infanticide? I'm not being sarcastic or snarky, its a serious question. Because those construct ideas do not begin to form in the mind of a child untill about age two, and begin to florish at about age four.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 04, 2007 2:33 pm
 
Technically, we're not conscious in the way that it's normally applied to people until after birth, we think. I mean, favorite sounds, tastes, etc. we can discern in the womb at the later stages, but it's not active in the same way that an adult's active thought is.
There's primitive brainwaves at 6 weeks, yes, but we don't know when active thought begins. We don't know when certain types of pain begin. We also don't know when the will to live kicks in, but an active understanding of being alive doesn't start until after birth. The instinct of self-preservation is always present, but that doesn't mean it's emotionally recognized.
What sets humans apart from other organisms doesn't kick in until we're toddlers. Why is human life special? It isn't, in the grand scheme of things, if you take away all religious and philosophical debates. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 04, 2007 3:47 pm
I don't know what "agree with" means.
We can't assume that our way of being conscious and having feelings and stuff is the only way to do that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 04, 2007 5:05 pm
Either you're trying to dodge the question, or English isn't your first languag. Do you agree with the practice of infanticide, since infants are not conscious in the way you and i are, can not feel (or experince if you want to be technical) pain the same way we can, and are not self-aware, and only have the basic desire to eat and sleep?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 04, 2007 5:23 pm
i wonder though... is anyone truly concious anyway? nihilsts make an argument that nothing really exists bu them- and nobody can prove them wrong. other than yourself, aside from what you are told, there is no way to prove that anyone else exists, or has feelings or thoughts or cares. They could all be imagined by you.
I don't really like that idea, but, much like the concept of God, it is impossible to prove or disprove because we cannot see into people's minds
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 04, 2007 5:47 pm
At one point in the third trimester, it's speculated that they can feel more pain than an infant because they have the connections all in place and working without the coating. Third trimester abortions are rare though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 04, 2007 5:54 pm
thank god...if there is any group of human i can honestly say i hate, it would be those who have elective third trimester abortions
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 04, 2007 7:26 pm
Rilian I think it's pretty obvious that a blastocyst doesn't have any consciousness, feelings, or desire to live. I could be wrong about that, and if there is one day evidence to the contrary, I will change my beliefs. Rilian I don't know what "agree with" means. We can't assume that our way of being conscious and having feelings and stuff is the only way to do that. These posts seem contradictory. In one you say it's okay for blastocysts to be killed, because they don't have consciousness in the way that we have consciousness. In the next, you seem to be saying that infanticide is wrong even though infants don't have the same kind of consciousness as we do. But the point Pyro has been trying to make, I think, is that consciousness, feelings, and the desire to live are all philosophical ideas. Just because someone is in a coma and so isn't conscious, and doesn't feel or have an active desire to live, doesn't mean that they aren't human and doesn't mean that they don't have human rights. If we are going to say that human lives are valuable, then all human lives should be valuable, we shouldn't be picking and choosing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 04, 2007 8:25 pm
I.Am Rilian I think it's pretty obvious that a blastocyst doesn't have any consciousness, feelings, or desire to live. I could be wrong about that, and if there is one day evidence to the contrary, I will change my beliefs. Rilian I don't know what "agree with" means. We can't assume that our way of being conscious and having feelings and stuff is the only way to do that. These posts seem contradictory. In one you say it's okay for blastocysts to be killed, because they don't have consciousness in the way that we have consciousness. In the next, you seem to be saying that infanticide is wrong even though infants don't have the same kind of consciousness as we do. I was saying blastocysts don't have any consciousness. But it's quite likely that I hold contradictory beliefs. See, humans have a hard time seeing the big picture. We tend to form beliefs for one situation at a time. That doesn't mean that I won't try to fix it. But I have more urgent concerns right now, which are tearing me away from gaia.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 04, 2007 8:27 pm
Tiger of the Fire Either you're trying to dodge the question, or English isn't your first languag. Do you agree with the practice of infanticide, since infants are not conscious in the way you and i are, can not feel (or experince if you want to be technical) pain the same way we can, and are not self-aware, and only have the basic desire to eat and sleep? Um.. I mean, if I supported infanticide, then the human species would die off? So, no. Infanticide means killing all the infants, right?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
