Not Mature

[paradox]

You didn't address the point at all.

fetus not having brain isn't really an excuse for abortion.

It would be better to prove that life begins after 2 weeks of conception.

 

[SkepticThinker]

fetus not having brain isn't really an excuse for abortion.

That's not the claim under discussion.

The claim under discussion was that a blastocyst/zygote/fetus that has no brain wouldn't know if it was being aborted or not. It wouldn't be able to think about anything, given that it doesn't have a brain.

It would be better to prove that life begins after 2 weeks of conception.

That's not pertinent to this discussion.

 

[paradox]

The claim under discussion was that a blastocyst/zygote/fetus that has no brain wouldn't know if it was being aborted or not. It wouldn't be able to think about anything, given that it doesn't have a brain.

OK, but not being able to care about existence due to lack of brain also isn't an excuse for abortion, since people in coma are likewise not being able to care about their existence, so why don't doctors just inject something into them to end their life?

I find your argument very weak because caring about existence isn't about brain or lack of brain obviously as I have just prove it's not.

 

[SkepticThinker]

OK, but not being able to care about existence due to lack of brain also isn't an excuse for abortion, since people in coma are likewise not being able to care about their existence, so why don't doctors just inject something into them to end their life?

I find your argument very weak because caring about existence isn't about brain or lack of brain obviously as I have just prove it's not.

People in a coma have brains. They are born. They have lived. They are fully formed, developed and birthed human beings who have lived a life with social connections. The people close to them in their lives could/would know how much they care about their existence for the very reason that they CAN CARE ABOUT THEIR EXISTENCE.
A blastocyst/zygote/fetus with no brain at all cannot care about anything, because caring requires brain activity. Such a thing doesn't know it exists, never mind have the ability to care if it exists.

That's the entire point of your discussion with that poster.

 

[paradox]

People in a coma have brains. They are born. They have lived. They are fully formed, developed and birthed human beings who have lived a life with social connections. The people close to them in their lives could/would know how much they care about their existence for the very reason that they CAN CARE ABOUT THEIR EXISTENCE.

What you're saying is that fetus (unlike person in coma) has nobody who would care for it's existence, which is not true,
there are many people in the world who care about fetus and it's existence.

"being born" doesn't mean start living, "They have lived" doesn't mean start living, "They are fully formed" doesn't mean start living.

Sorry but your argument is weak, you have no way of knowing when does life start, and life is all that matters, not brains but you refused to comment on that.
But hen why don't we wait for fetus to be born and formed and ask the person if if would care to be aborted, you see, that's life.

 

[Valjean]

fetus not having brain isn't really an excuse for abortion.

It would be better to prove that life begins after 2 weeks of conception.

So it's life you hold sacred? You object to killing tomatoes?
Seriously, have you haven't thought this through? Your values and actions are inconsistent.

So explain, please. What makes abortion wrong? It clearly isn't life, or you'd have starved to death.

 

[paradox]

So it's life you hold sacred? You object to killing tomatoes?
Seriously, have you haven't thought this through? Your values and actions are inconsistent.

So explain, please. What makes abortion wrong? It clearly isn't life, or you'd have starved to death.

If you compare human life with tomato then what should I add to this?

 

[SkepticThinker]

What you're saying is that fetus (unlike person in coma) has nobody who would care for it's existence, which is not true,
there are many people in the world who care about fetus and it's existence.

We're not talking about other people caring about anything here. We're talking about a blastocyst/zygote/fetuses' ability to care at all about anything.
Fetuses themselves can't "care" about their existence because they don't have brains to care with.
That's the entire crux of the discussion about fetuses' being able to care whether they continue existing or not.

"being born" doesn't mean start living, "They have lived" doesn't mean start living, "They are fully formed" doesn't mean start living.

Yeah, it does. For the purposes of this discussion it definitely does. Hence the reason I pointed out the distinction.

Sorry but your argument is weak, you have no way of knowing when does life start, and life is all that matters, not brains but you refused to comment on that.
But hen why don't we wait for fetus to be born and formed and ask the person if if would care to be aborted, you see, that's life.

Sorry, but you don't appear to even know what the argument is, despite my just explaining it to you.

"Life starts" when you're born and you can live independently from another human being. Notice how we don't count our age from the moment of conception but rather, from the moment and day we are born? Please notice that.

We know when brains develop in utero. We're talking about the ability to think and ponder one's existence which is impossible to do without a brain, because brains do those things. That's the bottom line to the discussion. The bottom line that you don't seem to want to address.[/QUOTE]

 

[SkepticThinker]

If you compare human life with tomato then what should I add to this?

It's a thought experiment, in light of your comments.
Try giving it some thought for a sec.

 

[paradox]

Yeah, it does. For the purposes of this discussion it definitely does. Hence the reason I pointed out the distinction.

If that's so then you need to prove when does the life start right?

"Life starts" when you're born and you can live independently from another human being.

According to whom?

Notice how we don't count our age from the moment of conception but rather, from the moment and day we are born? Please notice that.

That's weak argument, we also count years since Jesus but this is not proof that there was nothing before Jesus.
Counting years isn't about how long one is alive but rather how long since born.

We're talking about the ability to think and ponder one's existence which is impossible to do without a brain, because brains do those things. That's the bottom line to the discussion. The bottom line that you don't seem to want to address.

That's your argument, mine is that life is what matters not brains.

We're not talking about other people caring about anything here. We're talking about a blastocyst/zygote/fetuses' ability to care at all about anything.

It's you who mentioned others in caring about others not me, I just applied your logic.

Fetuses themselves can't "care" about their existence because they don't have brains to care with.
That's the entire crux of the discussion about fetuses' being able to care whether they continue existing or not.

And I keep saying that life itself is of grater importance than not having brain to care.

 

[SkepticThinker]

If that's so then you need to prove when does the life start right?

No. All that matters here is when the brain is developed and capable of thought. We are talking about THOUGHTS and FEELINGS, both if which require brains.

According to whom?

According to the way it is. When babies are born, they can live independently from the body they used to reside within. That's when we start calculating how old a person is - from the day they were actually born. But of course, this discussion isn't about when life begins. It's about whether a blastocyst/zygote/fetus is capable of experiencing thoughts and emotions.

That's weak argument, we also count years since Jesus but this is not proof that there was nothing before Jesus.
Counting years isn't about how long one is alive but rather how long since born.

Sorry but this makes no sense and doesn't address the point, at all.

That's your argument, mine is that life is what matters not brains.

Good grief, that's not the point under discussion. Why can't you stick to the point?

We're not talking about when you think life begins. We're talking about when thoughts and feelings can be experienced. Those things cannot be experienced without a brain.

It's you who mentioned others in caring about others not me, I just applied your logic.

And I keep saying that life itself is of grater importance than not having brain to care.

Please explain how anyone can experience thoughts and feelings without a brain. That's the point under discussion.

 

[paradox]

No. All that matters here is when the brain is developed and capable of thought. We are talking about THOUGHTS and FEELINGS, both if which require brains.


According to the way it is. When babies are born, they can live independently from the body they used to reside within. That's when we start calculating how old a person is - from the day they were actually born. But of course, this discussion isn't about when life begins. It's about whether a blastocyst/zygote/fetus is capable of experiencing thoughts and emotions.


Sorry but this makes no sense and doesn't address the point, at all.


Good grief, that's not the point under discussion. Why can't you stick to the point?

We're not talking about when you think life begins. We're talking about when thoughts and feelings can be experienced. Those things cannot be experienced without a brain.





Please explain how anyone can experience thoughts and feelings without a brain. That's the point under discussion.

OK, let's make this shorter:

Your argument is that fetus has no brains and thus can't care about it's existence and this justifies abortion.
My argument is that life begins at conception and thus abortion means taking life.

Morally speaking my argument outweights yours because life matters more than not being able to care about own existence.
Do you agree? if not, why not?

 

[SkepticThinker]

OK, let's make this shorter:

Your argument is that fetus has no brains and thus can't care about it's existence and this justifies abortion.
My argument is that life begins at conception and thus abortion means taking life.

My argument is that a blastocyst/zygote/fetus doesn't have a brain and therefore can't care or think about stuff. So asking a blastocyst/zygote/fetus if it cares if it exists is nonsensical.

Your argument doesn't speak at all to the matter under discussion. Whenever you think "life begins" has nothing to do with that life's ability to care and think about whether it exists or not.

Morally speaking my argument outweights yours because life matters more than not being able to care about own existence.
Do you agree? if not, why not?

No. Because the matter under discussion is about whether or not a blastocyst/zygote/fetus can think and feel and pontificate about it's existence without a brain, which of course, it can't.
Your argument is irrelevant to that.

 

[paradox]

Your argument doesn't speak at all to the matter under discussion. Whenever you think "life begins" has nothing to do with that life's ability to care and think about whether it exists or not.

A matter of discussion is abortion rather than ability of being able to care or not which is rather your argument to justify abortion.
We can't deny fetus lacking brains but same way you can't claim life beings when one is born.

Thus discussing this makes no sense in regard to abortion, rather which argument (yours or mine) is of greater moral importance .
Do we agree?

Your argument is irrelevant to that.

My argument is not relevant to your argument, yes, but it is relevant for the matter under discussion which is abortion rather than ability to care due to lack of brain, right?

 

[SkepticThinker]

A matter of discussion is abortion rather than ability of being able to care or not which is rather your argument to justify abortion.

We can't deny fetus lacking brains but same way you can't claim life beings when one is born.

Nope.

This, from post #22, ....

You: "Would you like that your parents aborted you so you would not exist now and enjoy life?

Valjean: “I would be entirely indifferent to it.
I was in no physical or psychic distress a year before I was born. Had I never been born this non-condition would have persisted."


You: “You said that only to support what you said but in fact nobody is indifferent about their existence.”

... Is where this particular discussion we are having started from.

Thus discussing this makes no sense in regard to abortion, rather which argument (yours or mine) is of greater moral importance .

Do we agree?

You’re the one who asked the question about how one would feel if one’s parents had aborted them. The rest of us are responding to that.

I don't see this as a morality question or as a reason to abort or not, necessarily.

My argument is not relevant to your argument, yes, but it is relevant for the matter under discussion which is abortion rather than ability to care due to lack of brain, right?

You're the one who brought up the question about how one would feel if one's parents had aborted them, that myself and others are responding to. Perhaps you could explain what point you were getting at there. That might help clarify.

 

[paradox]

You: "Would you like that your parents aborted you so you would not exist now and enjoy life?

Yes, I asked what feels NOW, but his answer was unrelated to question, he answered what he would feel then:

Valjean: “I would be entirely indifferent to it.
I was in no physical or psychic distress a year before I was born. Had I never been born this non-condition would have persisted."

Do you see evasion of my question?

You're the one who brought up the question about how one would feel if one's parents had aborted them, that myself and others are responding to. Perhaps you could explain what point you were getting at there. That might help clarify.

Yes, my question is simple, go ahead and YOU answer it:

Would you like that your parents aborted you so you would not exist NOW and enjoy life?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Yes, I asked what feels NOW, but his answer was unrelated to question, he answered what he would feel then:


Do you see evasion of my question?


Yes, my question is simple, go ahead and YOU answer it:

Would you like that your parents aborted you so you would not exist NOW and enjoy life?

My answer would be the same as the one given; if I were aborted, I wouldn't know about it to begin with, so I wouldn't have any feelings about it, either way. And I wouldn't be here now to pontificate on the matter.

If what you're really asking is if I am happy to be alive, yes, I am. But there have been times when that wasn't so. If I were in a hospital bed in agony with a terminal illness, I probably wouldn't be so happy either.

 

[paradox]

My answer would be the same as the one given; if I were aborted, I wouldn't know about it to begin with, so I wouldn't have any feelings about it, either way. And I wouldn't be here now to pontificate on the matter.

That's not my question.
my question is clear:
Would you like that your parents aborted you so you would not exist NOW and enjoy life?

Note that I'm not asking you what you felt when you were a fetus.

 

[SkepticThinker]

That's not my question.
my question is clear:
Would you like that your parents aborted you so you would not exist NOW and enjoy life?

Note that I'm not asking you what you felt when you were a fetus.

It's a poorly worded question, then. Sorry. If I were aborted, I wouldn't think anything. That's why got the answer you did, from two different posters.


I gave you answers to both "before" and "after," though for some reason, you've cut out the second portion of my response.

 

[paradox]

I gave you answers to both "before" and "after," though for some reason, you've cut out the second portion of my response.

You answer includes "if I were aborted" but that's not what I asked. sorry.

Why is it so difficult to answer to simple question?