06-29-2013, 10:46 AM | #161 | |||||
x'); DROP TABLE FFR;--
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,332
|
Re: Texas Senate Filibuster Regarding Abortion
Quote:
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/mar...sers-28812.htm Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
And yeah, it is stupid to declare birth the starting moment, but thankfully nobody here is making that argument. Quote:
Fetuses begin developing a brain stem at ~7 weeks, but the components required for consciousness don't really form until much, much later. Just because there is an "incongruence" between these two doesn't mean we don't have the evidence/understanding to make sense of what the different implications are. If you want to look into something interesting, Google whether or not insects feel pain. The ability to respond to stimuli is not the same as sentience or "feeling" them in the way we typically think. It's an unconscious, automatic reaction. For example: This is a child born with anencephaly, which means they lack a brain -- they only have the stem. In this case, it's one of those rare occurrences when the child actually lives for a while. However, it's not even aware it exists. It can't feel, taste, smell, hear, or even think. And yet it moves and writhes around and responds to external stimuli all the same. Last edited by Reincarnate; 06-29-2013 at 10:52 AM.. |
|||||
06-29-2013, 10:28 PM | #162 |
sunshine and rainbows
Join Date: Feb 2006
Age: 41
Posts: 1,987
|
Re: Texas Senate Filibuster Regarding Abortion
Telling me that you or others 'know better' is retarded. The only criteria that you have provided to me about sentience is the requirement of a cortex, which is plain wrong. The cortex organizes information, allows for interpretation, separates us from animals. It most certainly is not required for emotions or sensations. Don't pretend like I don't know shit about the brain...I have a science degree in psychology. Your midbrain is where emotions are ultimately processed. And also, if a kid is 'responding to stimuli', then it has a sense of touch. The ability to feel and the ability to realize that you are a being that is feeling are 2 different things. A brain stem is strong cephalization, is highly organized, and it complex. It's not like it's individual, single cells acting independently of each other in response to stimuli.
You are showing ignorance of any sort of semi-complex neuropsychology, and you're pretending that we aren't ignorant about many things. An argument based on us being ignorant is 100% valid if we're ignorant. In order to make me stop arguing based on that, you need to give some sort of proof that we know when a being first experiences. So far, you seem to think that's months later in gestation than I do. You've given me an example of a baby that can't see, hear, taste or smell, and then say 'hey look, it doesn't experience', while saying that responding to touch without a cortex erroneously means that the baby doesn't experience touch. You have shown or proved nothing, but it seems like you are still presuming that cortex is required for sensation and you're trying to show me 'look, science knows that this kid isn't experiencing anything'. For what it's worth, I wouldn't want to raise that kid as my own, I'd seriously consider abortion if I knew about it. I also think that I would be being selfish for it, because I do consider that baby as having the ability to experience...it just can't experience much. Counter-example to cortical involvement being necessary for experience: http://www-psych.stanford.edu/~knutson/ans/ansch11.pdf Stuff known decades ago about fear detailing how it doesn't require cortical involvement, including the ability for completely non-cortical brain to learn. And IIRC my studies, all basic emotions require midbrain only. There is a reason why religion and thinking that souls or a spirit and such exist, because to say that there's something magical with the beginning of life that we don't quite get almost makes more sense than saying the ability to experience is derived, somehow, from parts that don't seem to experience by themselves. We've gone down discussions before where you had to conclude that everything in the world possesses some sort of rudimentary consciousness. I also don't know what you were getting at with your WebMD link, because it looked like you were pointing it out to show that I was wrong, when in fact it agrees with me. "Any time you forget to take a pill, you must use another form of birth control until you finish the pill pack. When you forget to take a birth control pill, you increase the chance of releasing an egg from your ovary." Last edited by Cavernio; 06-29-2013 at 10:34 PM.. |
06-29-2013, 11:42 PM | #163 | |
Legendary Noob
|
Re: Texas Senate Filibuster Regarding Abortion
Quote:
Taken religiously, the pill has success rate of >99%. Taken more sporadically, it drops the success rate, but is still effective
__________________
|
|
06-29-2013, 11:54 PM | #164 | |||
x'); DROP TABLE FFR;--
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,332
|
Re: Texas Senate Filibuster Regarding Abortion
Quote:
An argument based on us being ignorant is only valid as far as the ignorance. Just because we are ignorant about one piece doesn't make us ignorant about everything else we know. You don't seem to understand the difference between physical reaction to stimuli and the processing of that stimuli into something we would call "conscious pain" as we typically experience it. And you can't "consider that baby as having the ability to experience" because it doesn't have the components necessary to experience anything. Again, look into insects (which I assume you haven't done based on the nature of your response). Do you think a plastic/electronic doll manufactured by Mattel feels pain when you hit it just because it may move around when you press its buttons and react to voice commands? Do you believe it has the ability to interpret utility? Quote:
Anyway, you are conflating the "hard problem of consciousness" with the concept of sentience, utility, pain, and emotion. We don't need the concept of a soul to explain anything. Quote:
Last edited by Reincarnate; 06-30-2013 at 12:25 AM.. |
|||
06-30-2013, 12:27 AM | #165 |
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 16
|
Re: Texas Senate Filibuster Regarding Abortion
this is my honest belief. i believe that the more abortions, the better. there are way too many people on this planet. at this point, more babies does a lot more damage to our future than less babies. easier access to abortions and birth control= less babies = good.
more babies=bad less babies= good it's that simple. Hell, I would even condone infanticide.. why not? The future state of humanity would likely benefit from a significant reduction in the earth's population(as opposed to an increase). I'm not saying we should kill all of our children, but killing a good chunk of them wouldn't hurt. we are going to reach a breaking point if we don't slow down our growth. Last edited by DontBanMeYet; 06-30-2013 at 12:59 AM.. Reason: (quotations(within quotations)) |
06-30-2013, 12:49 AM | #166 |
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 16
|
Re: Texas Senate Filibuster Regarding Abortion
BKFP
Baby Killers For Peace trademark 2013. you read it here first |
06-30-2013, 01:44 AM | #167 |
FFR Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,757
|
Re: Texas Senate Filibuster Regarding Abortion
shouldve made your alt name Dr. Breen then
__________________
|
06-30-2013, 01:00 PM | #168 |
Forum User
|
Re: Texas Senate Filibuster Regarding Abortion
it's that simple.
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|