Abortion: can a mother hurt the embryo?

[leroy]

He already did.

You're simply playing the ostrich again.

Well then quote the error

 

[leroy]

This is why I have lost all respect for you.
You completely ignore what people tell you.
You completely misrepresent them.
You poison subjects such as this one with dishonest appeals to emotion.


I have told you countless of times what the actual issue is.
The issue is an issue of RIGHTS.

A point you consistently ignore and instead you just double down on the nonsense that people have already pointed out are irrelevant. By doubling down, you move from "misunderstanding the opposition" into "intellectually dishonest debate tactics".

Clearly you will not change your ways.

I have told you countless of times what the actual issue is.
The issue is an issue of RIGHTS.

Is that a good reason for not answering my questions?

A point you consistently ignore and instead you just double down on the nonsense that people have already pointed out are irrelevant.

1 they are not irrelevant / these are questions that woudl help me understand your view

2 If I am asking a question why cant you answer (even if itps irrelevant)

I answered stupid irrelevant questions about eggs in a jar or questions on killing 2 embrtyos in order to save a child etc….. these are stupid and irrelevant question but I had the courtesy of answering………..why can’t you show the same courtesy?

into "intellectually dishonest debate tactics".

Not answering questions and keeping your view vague and ambiguous is an intellectually dishonest tactic.

 

[leroy]

Says the guy who keeps insisting on calling abortions "the killing of children"
Eventhough it's been point out to you countless times that an abortion is not the killing of ANYTHING and that is just "termination of pregnancy", which means that a c-section is also an abortion.

Abortion is killing an organism, this is an objective fact that is easily verifiable by science….. affirming the opposite is just fanatic nonsense.

Doing something knowing that it will cause the dead of an organism is “killing” by definition.

So I you are wrong there.

See how easy it is to quote stuff that I think is wrong? why can´t you do the same?

Imagine how dishonest would it be if I simply affirm that you are wrong without quoting the alleged mistake nor explaining why I think you are worng

 

[Willamena]

Why is it dishonest to refer to an embryo as a potential consciousness?

Because it's not yet viable at that stage.

 

[crossfire]

Why is it dishonest to refer to an embryo as a potential consciousness?

Let me try to help you understand.

A blueprint of a house is not a house. While a blueprint is quite handy when it comes to building a house, you can't actually turn on the lights in a blueprint of a house. Someone might dream of an imagine a time when the lights in the house might turn on, but you must first build the house, build the wiring, install the wiring, build and install lighting (potential consciousness) fixtures, and have a power source to fuel the lights (consciousness.)

A blastocyte is like a blueprint for a human. Materials to build the human must be harvested from the environment (the mother) before any consciousness-supporting elements can be built. Only when the consciousness-supporting elements are in place one might venture to say that it might have the potential for consciousness.

Without the consciousness-supporting structures, there is no potential for consciousness. This is where your dishonesty comes in when claiming it is a potential consciousness. The actual consciousness-supporting structures must be in place before there is any potential for consciousness. The blueprints alone are simply not consciousness-supporting structures.

 

[leroy]

Because it's not yet viable at that stage.

aja
and so what?


Viable or not, it still has potential consciousness.

But even if I am wrong, due to some semantic trick that you might use, that would not make the claim a “dishonest claim” at most it would be a mistake or an area of disagreement

So your accusation is false

 

[Sheldon]

Referring to an embryo as "potential consciousness" is dishonest.
Referring to pregnancy as "9 months of discomfort" is dishonest.
Suggesting that there is no difference between a fetus and a newborn is dishonest.
Suggesting that you're not trying to impose your morality is dishonest.

That's a pretty accurate assessment.

 

[leroy]

Let me try to help you understand.

A blueprint of a house is not a house. While a blueprint is quite handy when it comes to building a house, you can't actually turn on the lights in a blueprint of a house. Someone might dream of an imagine a time when the lights in the house might turn on, but you must first build the house, build the wiring, install the wiring, build and install lighting (potential consciousness) fixtures, and have a power source to fuel the lights (consciousness.)

A blastocyte is like a blueprint for a human. Materials to build the human must be harvested from the environment (the mother) before any consciousness-supporting elements can be built. Only when the consciousness-supporting elements are in place one might venture to say that it might have the potential for consciousness.

Without the consciousness-supporting structures, there is no potential for consciousness. This is where your dishonesty comes in when claiming it is a potential consciousness. The actual consciousness-supporting structures must be in place before there is any potential for consciousness. The blueprints alone are simply not consciousness-supporting structures.

Are you saying that these “conscious supporting structures” appear at the moment of birth? Sounds like magic to me, can you prove it? (no)………….(note the question marks in the sentences, these question marks indicate that I am asking a question and that an answer is expected)

Well I´ll say the “conscious supporting structures” are there form the moment of conception, the embryo will simply follow the natural laws and consciousness and mental states will naturally emerge (this is not analogous to the blue print of a house)

So at most this is an area of disagreement about a controversial topic, where even experts disagree (and sure I might be wrong) but even if I am wrong this doesn’t justify the accusation of me being dishonest.

Ironically To label as “dishonest” someone who simply happens to disagree with is dishonest

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

4 claim that I am wrong, but not quoting the mistake
5 claim that I made logical fallacies, but not quoting nor explaining the logic}ical fallacy
6 claim that you already refuted “X” claim but not providing a quote for such refutation

I'm going to tell you again what I have told you several times in the past, as have several posters on this thread. People get tired of repeating themselves to you, and eventually stop trying to communicate with you. I don't know just why this happens. Are you not reading their answers? Are you reading them but not understanding them? Are you understanding them and then forgetting the answer?

Nobody knows, because you won't discuss the matter. You could answer those three questions. I know you could. And the answer might be the beginning of reaching a mutual understanding and even suggestions on how to do better. But that doesn't happen, because like so many other things written to you, you simply ignore it. There is no evidence in your replies that you even read the words, much less understood them and then forgot them.

And it hurts you to do that. You're already seeing a great deal of disrespect coming your way. People tell you they've lost respect for you. They condemn your debate etiquette. They eventually refuse to answer your questions. That's your fault, because it doesn't need to be the case. You just don't care I suppose, but once again, one can only guess that since there is zero feedback from you on the issue.

The point is that the embryo/fetus is a human (as any DNA test can show) with potential consciousness and other mental states. Like a new born, a person in coma, or a person sleeping.

Irrelevant. The relevant distinctions for me between an embryo and a sleeping person have already been explained to you more than once, but you never commented on those answers. Did you read those answers? Did you understand them? Did you understand then forget them?

if you always value the life of other humans with potential consciousness and you would never support killing them to avoid 9 months of discomfort, why making an arbitrary exception with a fetus/embryo?

I didn't make an arbitrary exception. I gave you a reason for why I consider one moral and the other immoral. I also explained why it wasn't an issue of discomfort. Did you read those answers? Did you understand them? Did you understand then forget them?

What relevant difference do you see between a new born and a fetus?

Already answered.

Under your view, is abortion ok at any stage ? If not at what point is it wrong to abort? 12 weeks 15weeks 24 weeks?

Already answered. I gave you my criteria for moral abortion.

I am not trying to impose my opinion and morality rather all I am saying is that if you apply your own morality consistently, you should be pro life.......if you think its wrong to kill a new born baby..... and if there is no relevant difference between a fetus and a new born......you should conclude that abortion is wrong.

Yes, you are trying to impose your moral views, or more correctly, persuade others to adopt them. That's fine. I just wish you would be part of a discussion rather than just be somebody who asks questions the answers to which have already been provided and which it seems were never seen by you. That's you're entire posting presence - you have an opinion and an argument, and everybody else's words are invisible. Do you know anything about any of us posting here apart from the fact that we disagree with you? I don't think you do. You can only explain their beliefs in terms of your own - what other people DON'T believe, but not why even after being told. Is that correct?

New born babies are easy to give in to adoption// there are Thousands of unfertile partners with good stable jobs , in a waiting list, hoping to adopt a baby. So almost certainly, the baby will be raised in a nice and stable home ....... but noooooo prochoicers say that it is better to just kill him

No, pro-choicers don't say that. Once again, you aren't paying attention to the words of anybody but yourself. Nobody at all has said anything like that to you.

I suspect that your opinion about unwanted babies being easy to place is jaded because of a comment you made about fertility issues in your family and a visit to a Mexican fertility clinic that was unaffordable for you to the time. I don't remember the cost, but I do remember that it was given in pesos and (thousands of) US dollars, and that you knew and provided the dollar to peso exchange rate, 20:1. I hope that if you still want children, that you have some now or will soon. Maybe that's why you envision all of those unwanted babies finding good homes and becoming well-adjusted and productive members of society.

Look at that. You wrote something several days ago, I read it, I understood it, and I remembered it. Let that be an inspiration to you of what is possible. All that is needed is that you pay attention to the words in front of you enough to understand them, and to retain them. I also gave you a specific method for doing that - twice. A road map to never ignoring content written to you again. But let me guess. You have no idea what that was. If that's correct, perhaps you should ask yourself why, and whether there is any value to you in trying to do better. That was potentially very valuable advice to you. But it's gone from view now, and I would feel foolish rewriting it just to have it ignored again.

Do you recall any of the discussion I presented about thinking what's in it for the other guy when you engage with others? You failed to respond to it, so I suspect that you don't know what I'm referring to. Too bad. That might be the basis for further exploration had you explained at the time why you didn't consider it good advice for you, assuming you don't. But that subthread died on the vine from neglect like all of the other content that you fail to respond to. I think that that was also potentially valuable advice for you.

So why do I respond to your posts? What's in it for me to write to a person who never seems to understand or remember any of it? I'll leave that as an exercise in problem solving for you, although to do that, you'll need to read these words, understand them, and remember them. What are the logical possibilities?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well I disagree, am I dishonest just because I disagree with you?

If not, then can you quote an actual claim made by me that you would consider dishonest?

You are making stuff up again. Another poster told answered your question for you. I cannot since I get in trouble if I use the word "dishonest". I am merely trying to get you to follow proper rules of debate.

No they don’t, but I’ll wait for you to develop an actual argument so that I can show you why are you wrong

But the reason why I affirm that an embryo is worthy of humans rights (like the right to live) is because

1 it’s a human

+

2 it has potential consciousness

(you need both)

So even if you show through a semantic trick that a sperm ihas “2” my world view doesn’t forces me to conclude that the sperm is worthy of human rights because it still fails to have “1”

I would add

If you grant human rights to all humans with potential consciousness, babies, people in comma, people sleeping etc., why making an arbitrary exception with an embryo?

Honestly I think is a valid question, and your refusal to answer is evidence that you are cornered and don’t know how to answer without the collapse of your world view.

Sorry, but as has been pointed out it is you that plays the semantics game when you call blastocyst, embryos, and fetuses persons. Are they human? Sure, but so is a sperm cell. It merely requires a partner to fulfill its destiny. All that I did was to move the goalposts further. You still have not justified your claim.

Neither do people in coma have consciousness in this particular moment, but they are still considered persons worthy of human rights.................babies likely dont have concsiouness and
Far more ensalivng than a fetus,,,,,,,,,, so why not killing babies?

That is not true. They cannot speak. But their brain is still functioning. A fetus's brain cannot function at the same level. Articles have been provided to you. One of them explained that it is due to the limited amount of oxygen available to them. When it comes to people in comas hear familiar voices their brain responds. This is shown by the increased level of oxygen consumption in parts of the brain:


Can people in comas hear their loved ones' voices?

As to actual babies they do have consciousness. The first thing that they do is to take a deep breath. That sends an immediate jolt of oxygen to the brain. It goes from 0 to 60 almost immediately. This is something that even the ancient Hebrews recognized. They call it "the breath of life"

So potential consciousness seems to be enough to justify the right to life, so why making an arbitrary exception with the embryo?

No, you failed to show that at all.

If I were to bet, i´ll bet that you are wrong, but irrelevant, non of my argument is based on the bible, for the sake of discussion we can assume that the bible is wrong

You would lose. But then you would also have to be able to reason rationally to see why and how you lost.

And great, Now you have nothing again. Your "potential" argument does not work. You need more than potential.

---

You will not a few question marks (?) in this comment just for your information question marks indicate that the sentence is a question, and an answer is expected.[/QUOTE]

If I feel like it, as I did this morning. I will answer questions. But until you change you your debating techniques you will sometimes merely get corrections.

 

[crossfire]

Are you saying that these “conscious supporting structures” appear at the moment of birth?'

Nope. They develop prior to birth. However, the moment of birth is an excellent opportunity when they can start being put to use.

Sounds like magic to me, can you prove it? (no)………….(note the question marks in the sentences, these question marks indicate that I am asking a question and that an answer is expected)

Different aspects of consciousness include the 6 base sense media: the seeing media (eyes, optic nerves, visual processing centers, and all other elements connected to seeing: gathering and processing visual data), hearing sense base media (ears, optic nerves, etc), smelling (and its associated sense base media,) tasting (and its associated sense base media,) tactile sense base media, and the intellect/pattern recognition base sense media. All of these sense media bases must be in place before their associated senses can arise, as well as the consciousnesses associated with them that gather and process information from these six sensory bases. These sensory bases are not yet present in non-viable embryos.

This only covers rudimentary consciousness--it doesn't even start getting into sentience.

Well I´ll say the “conscious supporting structures” are there form the moment of conception, the embryo will simply follow the natural laws and consciousness and mental states will naturally emerge (this is not analogous to the blue print of a house)

Show me the visual processing center of a zygote. It's not there.

So at most this is an area of disagreement about a controversial topic, where even experts disagree (and sure I might be wrong) but even if I am wrong this doesn’t justify the accusation of me being dishonest.

I provided logic and information to support my argument. You have not.

Ironically To label as “dishonest” someone who simply happens to disagree with is dishonest

I have refuted your assertion about "potential consciousness." The necessary elements for consciousness are not present at fertilization, therefore there is not potential consciousness at fertilization. To continue to assert there is potential consciousness at fertilization without supporting arguments and evidence is dishonest.

 

[leroy]

I'm going to tell you again what I have told you several times in the past, as have several posters on this thread. People get tired of repeating themselves to you, and eventually stop trying to communicate with you. I don't know just why this happens. Are you not reading their answers? Are you reading them but not understanding them? Are you understanding them and then forgetting the answer?

Nobody knows, because you won't discuss the matter. You could answer those three questions. I know you could. And the answer might be the beginning of reaching a mutual understanding and even suggestions on how to do better. But that doesn't happen, because like so many other things written to you, you simply ignore it. There is no evidence in your replies that you even read the words, much less understood them and then forgot them.

And it hurts you to do that. You're already seeing a great deal of disrespect coming your way. People tell you they've lost respect for you. They condemn your debate etiquette. They eventually refuse to answer your questions. That's your fault, because it doesn't need to be the case. You just don't care I suppose, but once again, one can only guess that since there is zero feedback from you on the issue.



Irrelevant. The relevant distinctions for me between an embryo and a sleeping person have already been explained to you more than once, but you never commented on those answers. Did you read those answers? Did you understand them? Did you understand then forget them?



I didn't make an arbitrary exception. I gave you a reason for why I consider one moral and the other immoral. I also explained why it wasn't an issue of discomfort. Did you read those answers? Did you understand them? Did you understand then forget them?



Already answered.



Already answered. I gave you my criteria for moral abortion.



Yes, you are trying to impose your moral views, or more correctly, persuade others to adopt them. That's fine. I just wish you would be part of a discussion rather than just be somebody who asks questions the answers to which have already been provided and which it seems were never seen by you. That's you're entire posting presence - you have an opinion and an argument, and everybody else's words are invisible. Do you know anything about any of us posting here apart from the fact that we disagree with you? I don't think you do. You can only explain their beliefs in terms of your own - what other people DON'T believe, but not why even after being told. Is that correct?



No, pro-choicers don't say that. Once again, you aren't paying attention to the words of anybody but yourself. Nobody at all has said anything like that to you.

I suspect that your opinion about unwanted babies being easy to place is jaded because of a comment you made about fertility issues in your family and a visit to a Mexican fertility clinic that was unaffordable for you to the time. I don't remember the cost, but I do remember that it was given in pesos and (thousands of) US dollars, and that you knew and provided the dollar to peso exchange rate, 20:1. I hope that if you still want children, that you have some now or will soon. Maybe that's why you envision all of those unwanted babies finding good homes and becoming well-adjusted and productive members of society.

Look at that. You wrote something several days ago, I read it, I understood it, and I remembered it. Let that be an inspiration to you of what is possible. All that is needed is that you pay attention to the words in front of you enough to understand them, and to retain them. I also gave you a specific method for doing that - twice. A road map to never ignoring content written to you again. But let me guess. You have no idea what that was. If that's correct, perhaps you should ask yourself why, and whether there is any value to you in trying to do better. That was potentially very valuable advice to you. But it's gone from view now, and I would feel foolish rewriting it just to have it ignored again.

Do you recall any of the discussion I presented about thinking what's in it for the other guy when you engage with others? You failed to respond to it, so I suspect that you don't know what I'm referring to. Too bad. That might be the basis for further exploration had you explained at the time why you didn't consider it good advice for you, assuming you don't. But that subthread died on the vine from neglect like all of the other content that you fail to respond to. I think that that was also potentially valuable advice for you.

So why do I respond to your posts? What's in it for me to write to a person who never seems to understand or remember any of it? I'll leave that as an exercise in problem solving for you, although to do that, you'll need to read these words, understand them, and remember them. What are the logical possibilities?

You are just being dishonest, no you haven’t answer to any of those questions, you are dishonestly keeping your view vague and ambiguous so that nobody can refute it.

But even if I missed your answer so what? I am interacting with many people in this thread and it should be understandable that I might miss a comment.

For example

If you value the life of all humans with potential consciousness, why making an exception with the fetus? When did you answer this? Is there anywhere in this thread where you answer to this question directly clearly and unabigously? Care to quote the answer?............................of course you won’t because you haven’t answer to it, because you have no answer for it. But you can prove me wrong, all you have to do is quote anywhere in this thread where you answered.

 

[leroy]

That is not true. They cannot speak. But their brain is still functioning. A fetus's brain cannot function at the same level. Articles have been provided to you. One of them explained that it is due to the limited amount of oxygen available to them. When it comes to people in comas hear familiar voices their brain responds. This is shown by the increased level of oxygen consumption in parts of the brain:


Can people in comas hear their loved ones' voices?

.

People in comma, cant feel pain, and are not aware of their own existence but apparently they can hear voices and fetus cant hear voices. (ok granted for the sake of argument)

So is a human life is valuable when it can hear voices? Is human value grounded on the fact that they can hear voices?

It really seems to be what you are saying.


If not, then please formulate your actual argument in an clear and unambiguous way.



BTW

Researchers discover brain patterns that suggest onset of attention and awareness. For everyone who's looked into an infant's sparkling eyes and wondered what goes on in its little fuzzy head, there's now an answer. New research shows that babies display glimmers of consciousness and memory as early as 5 months old.

Science | AAAS.

So like a fetus 1 month old babies are not conscious ether // so why isn’t ok to kill a baby if his existence represents an obstacle in your life?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

You are just being dishonest, no you haven’t answer to any of those questions, you are dishonestly keeping your view vague and ambiguous so that nobody can refute it.

Refute? You don't indicate that you even saw about 80-90% of the comments addressed to you. And no, my answers are neither vague nor ambiguous. They're plain English, lust like this answer and every other one you've ever seen from me. You just need to read them. And you've never refuted anything ever to my knowledge. You dissent, but refutation requires addressing the argument being refuted in a specific way, one that demonstrates that the refuted argument is unsound. You don't address arguments at all. Do you have a concept of what a refutation to this paragraph might look like?

even if I missed your answer so what?

Agreed. So what? And when you miss it a second time, it's still so what, but at that point it's time to move on.

it should be understandable that I might miss a comment.

It is unacceptable that you ignore so much content and then require a recap. And it is unacceptable that you have no interest in self-improvement. It translates into you being stuck in a rut that you have steadfastly refused to discuss.

In my last post to you, I referred to two areas where I tried to help you with this matter, and lamented that you had not only shown no interest in them, but that there was no evidence that you had seen or read them. You just did it again. You are still inexplicably incurious about any of this, and you can't expect others to accommodate that.

You were also incurious about the last comment regarding why a person who knows that his words to a certain poster won't be read, understood, or acknowledged as existing much less addressed would continue responding anyway.

If you value the life of all humans with potential consciousness, why making an exception with the fetus? When did you answer this?

I don't value the life of all humans with potential consciousness. Obviously, or I wouldn't be pro-choice. I answered the question when I explained my position on abortion. It was a complete answer. Did you even see it? You never commented then, and I don't care to repeat it. I explained what my values are. That's when I answered your question.

all you have to do is quote anywhere in this thread where you answered.

I have no motivation to go back and find that for you. I presented it to you more than once already. If you want to discuss what I've written, you'll need to do so in a timely way, preferably in your first response after reading it. Look at all of the content in this post. The parts you fail to address now will be in the past. If you want to return to any of it in the future, you'll need to find it yourself. I asked you multiple times if the issue was you didn't read the words written to you, or didn't understand them, or couldn't remember them. How is it possible that you failed to address that in this response? Whatever the answer, that behavior affects how you are viewed and what is worth writing to you.

It's in part why I won't to help you with those questions now. You give nothing back. You might have taken some interest in the "what's in it for the other guy" topic when it went by (twice). Obviously, you don't care. You might have taken some interest when I gave you a method for responding to posts in a way that is more considerate and interactive (twice). You didn't care about that either. Now I don't care to help you go back and find what you missed. What's in it for me? For that matter, what's in it for you if you won't look at it?

 

[leroy]

Refute? You don't indicate that you even saw about 80-90% of the comments addressed to you. And no, my answers are neither vague nor ambiguous. They're plain English, lust like this answer and every other one you've ever seen from me. You just need to read them. And you've never refuted anything ever to my knowledge. You dissent, but refutation requires addressing the argument being refuted in a specific way, one that demonstrates that the refuted argument is unsound. You don't address arguments at all. Do you have a concept of what a refutation to this paragraph might look like?



Agreed. So what? And when you miss it a second time, it's still so what, but at that point it's time to move on.



It is unacceptable that you ignore so much content and then require a recap. And it is unacceptable that you have no interest in self-improvement. It translates into you being stuck in a rut that you have steadfastly refused to discuss.

In my last post to you, I referred to two areas where I tried to help you with this matter, and lamented that you had not only shown no interest in them, but that there was no evidence that you had seen or read them. You just did it again. You are still inexplicably incurious about any of this, and you can't expect others to accommodate that.

You were also incurious about the last comment regarding why a person who knows that his words to a certain poster won't be read, understood, or acknowledged as existing much less addressed would continue responding anyway.



I don't value the life of all humans with potential consciousness. Obviously, or I wouldn't be pro-choice. I answered the question when I explained my position on abortion. It was a complete answer. Did you even see it? You never commented then, and I don't care to repeat it. I explained what my values are. That's when I answered your question.



I have no motivation to go back and find that for you. I presented it to you more than once already. If you want to discuss what I've written, you'll need to do so in a timely way, preferably in your first response after reading it. Look at all of the content in this post. The parts you fail to address now will be in the past. If you want to return to any of it in the future, you'll need to find it yourself. I asked you multiple times if the issue was you didn't read the words written to you, or didn't understand them, or couldn't remember them. How is it possible that you failed to address that in this response? Whatever the answer, that behavior affects how you are viewed and what is worth writing to you.

It's in part why I won't to help you with those questions now. You give nothing back. You might have taken some interest in the "what's in it for the other guy" topic when it went by (twice). Obviously, you don't care. You might have taken some interest when I gave you a method for responding to posts in a way that is more considerate and interactive (twice). You didn't care about that either. Now I don't care to help you go back and find what you missed. What's in it for me? For that matter, what's in it for you if you won't look at it?

this is just a poor and pathetic excuse for not answering the question.

I don't value the life of all humans with potential consciousness. Obviously, or I wouldn't be pro-choice. I answered the question when I explained my position on abortion. It was a complete answer. Did you even see it? You never commented then, and I don't care to repeat it. I explained what my values are. That's when I answered your question.

You value all humans with potential consciousness, except for fetus/embryos

Why? why making an exception with the fetus?


You are obviously being cornered and you don’t have the intellectual honestly of admitting that you are being inconsistent with your moral values / so you only alterative is:

1 Claim that you already answered

2 refuse to quote the answer

3 refuse to answer again

I honestly don’t understand this type of dishonest attitudes, your tactic might be good for winning a debate, but what do you gain?

Isn’t it better to simply admit a flaw in the pro choice view?

 

[leroy]

Nope. They develop prior to birth. However, the moment of birth is an excellent opportunity when they can start being put to use.[

when do they appear? is it ok to kill the fetus after

this point?

Different aspects of consciousness include the 6 base sense media: the seeing media (eyes, optic nerves, visual processing centers, and all other elements connected to seeing: gathering and processing visual data), hearing sense base media (ears, optic nerves, etc), smelling (and its associated sense base media,) tasting (and its associated sense base media,) tactile sense base media, and the intellect/pattern recognition base sense media. All of these sense media bases must be in place before their associated senses can arise, as well as the consciousnesses associated with them that gather and process information from these six sensory bases. These sensory bases are not yet present in non-viable embryos.

you are lagerly confused

consciousness and the 6 senses are completely different things.

So which one is it? What grounds the value of a person? Consciousness, the 6 sences, the “raw material” for conciouness, “the raw material” of the 6 sexses?

Make uo your mind and explain which one is it



This only covers rudimentary consciousness--it doesn't even start getting into sentience.


Show me the visual processing center of a zygote. It's not there.


I provided logic and information to support my argument. You have not.

I have refuted your assertion about "potential consciousness." The necessary elements for consciousness are not present at fertilization, therefore there is not potential consciousness at fertilization. To continue to assert there is potential consciousness at fertilization without supporting arguments and evidence is dishonest.

But I did supported my argument,

Potential conciseness simple means that it will have consciousness in the future

 

[crossfire]

when do they appear? is it ok to kill the fetus after

That would be a decision for the woman and her doctor to make, not me.

you are lagerly confused

consciousness and the 6 senses are completely different things.

Post your definition of consciousness, then. The pattern recognition of the 6 sensory bases are certainly a large part of it. (Necessary for the Perceptive cognitive functions of Sensing and Intuition. The other two cognitive functions are judging functions: Thinking and Feeling, which need perceived content to judge.)

So which one is it? What grounds the value of a person? Consciousness, the 6 sences, the “raw material” for conciouness, “the raw material” of the 6 sexses?

Make uo your mind and explain which one is it

Personally, I value sentient beings the most.

This only covers rudimentary consciousness--it doesn't even start getting into sentience.


Show me the visual processing center of a zygote. It's not there.


I provided logic and information to support my argument. You have not.


But I did supported my argument,

Potential conciseness simple means that it will have consciousness in the future

Don't count your chickens before they are hatched. It is not an automatic thing that will happen on its own without outside help. I've already linked an article upthread about how most embryos die soon after they are created (in relation to your In Vitro Fertilization post.)

There are many things that can and do go wrong that can prevent a viable being from developing, and it would take a substantial investment on the part of the mother (who is definitely a person) to help make this potential develop into a viable being. If she is willing to make this investment, more power to her. If she is not willing, she does have the right to defend herself.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

this is just a poor and pathetic excuse for not answering the question.
You value all humans with potential consciousness, except for fetus/embryos
Why? why making an exception with the fetus?
You are obviously being cornered and you don’t have the intellectual honestly of admitting that you are being inconsistent with your moral values / so you only alterative is:
1 Claim that you already answered
2 refuse to quote the answer
3 refuse to answer again
I honestly don’t understand this type of dishonest attitudes, your tactic might be good for winning a debate, but what do you gain?
Isn’t it better to simply admit a flaw in the pro choice view?

None of your comment above is of interest to me. There was a time in our discussions when that wouldn't have been a factor. If it was of interest to you, I would respect that and try to give you a clear answer to your post. But since you wouldn't extend the same courtesy in return, I lost interest in what you want several days ago. Now, you've added personal insults. My reply will address only matters of interest to me. Here are three such things:

• Cornered? You flatter yourself. You reply to almost nothing written to you, you can't make an argument, and you can't rebut one made to you. You're not the player you think you are.

• I resent your disrespectful demeanor. Your unwillingness to cooperate was an enigma, but it didn't diminish my willingness to be of service to you if I could. I had been nothing but polite and supportive to you. But, as you can see from this post, that ship has sailed. I feel no duty to consider your feelings any longer.

• Perhaps you should have considered the advice I gave you about thinking about what others want from you in return for them showing interest in your questions and comments. I told you explicitly what I need from you to continue giving you what you want from me, and you blew it off. What did you think would happen if you kept ignoring that? Then you added insult. How did you think that that would affect future relations between us?

 

[leroy]

That would be a decision for the woman and her doctor to make, not me.

SO just to be clear,

The mother can kill the fetus if she wants regardless if

1 He is conscious or nor}t

2 is sentient or not

3 has 6 senses or not

Is this your view?

Post your definition of consciousness, then. The pattern recognition of the 6 sensory bases are certainly a large part of it. (Necessary for the Perceptive cognitive functions of Sensing and Intuition. The other two cognitive functions are judging functions: Thinking and Feeling, which need perceived content to judge.)

Consciousness: the state of being awake aware of one's surroundings and your own existance

Personally, I value sentient beings the most.

What about beings that are not sentient in this moment, but will be in the future? People in comma,for example?

Don't count your chickens before they are hatched. It is not an automatic thing that will happen on its own without outside help. I've already linked an article upthread about how most embryos die soon after they are created (in relation to your In Vitro Fertilization post.)

yes some embryos die soon, so what?

 

[Sheldon]

You don't indicate that you even saw about 80-90% of the comments addressed to you.

Well said, I doubt this fact will gain any traction where it most would help though.