Originally posted by Firefly218
When you have consciousness, awareness of yourself and some degree of intelligence, you are not just a clump of cells.
honest question.
how do you determine something is aware of itself? how do you determine intelligence? how do you determine that something has consciousness?
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-12-11/flaws-basic-income-everyone
Although some of this is conjecture but there are issues that need to be addressed. Like funding these UBI ventures.
Originally posted by RaisenAs a preface, the answer largely depends on how one defines these terms. That aside: IMO, that all life has the drive for self-preservation means that, even if only on an instinctual level, there is some degree of "self" awareness in every living thing. The cells of our body, eg, are all well aware of themselves and their environment (how else could they do what they do, working with each other to keep themselves -- and us -- going), but their instinctual self-awareness is certainly not like the egoic or even the emotional awareness that we have, each one of us (our consciousness) being the emergent, synergistic totality of all our cells' awareness.
honest question.how do you determine something is aware of itself? how do you determine intelligence? how do you determine that something has consciousness?
Short version: life is that which deliberately make more of itself, "deliberate" implying not a simple S-R relationship, but S-O-R.
Originally posted by Mindship
As a preface, the answer largely depends on how one defines these terms. That aside: IMO, that all life has the drive for self-preservation means that, even if only on an instinctual level, there is some degree of "self" awareness in every living thing. The cells of our body, eg, are all well aware of themselves and their environment (how else could they do what they do, working with each other to keep themselves -- and us -- going), but their instinctual self-awareness is certainly not like the egoic or even the emotional awareness that we have, each one of us (our consciousness) being the emergent, synergistic totality of all our cells' awareness.Short version: life is that which deliberately make more of itself, "deliberate" implying not a simple S-R relationship, but S-O-R.
i see things similarly to you; however, i was interested in the other poster's response.
Originally posted by Bashar TegWhat is dishonest about the answers people are giving? I haven't seen anyone fail to admit they would save the child.
still waiting for a single honest answerhere, watch: i would save the kid and leave the embryos. in fact i would save a kitten and leave the embryos.
People are just saying this doesn't change their mind on abortion. If that's what the author means by a dishonest answer, then he's putting way too much stock into his hypothetical question IMO.
Originally posted by Afro Cheese
What is dishonest about the answers people are giving? I haven't seen anyone fail to admit they would save the child.People are just saying this doesn't change their mind on abortion. If that's what the author means by a dishonest answer, then he's putting way too much stock into his hypothetical question IMO.
👆
Originally posted by BentleyGood point. I'm pretty sure most people would opt to save the child in this situation as well. That doesn't render the old people's lives of no value. It just means we value the child more because there is more potential life to be lived in its case.
1 Child vs 5 Old people (over 80)Go!
I'd choose the life of my dog over that of a child I don't know. I'm not being facetious...I've thought about this and it would even be a difficult decision to choose my niece over my dog.
This is based on my personal feelings. This is probably not moral to most people's standards but phuck them. I'm living my life and I'll do what makes me happy. Living life according to other's morals is what manipulates people into doing stupid things. You live your whole life to fit into what others say is righteous and you will die having never truly lived.
With regard to the whole "life begins at conception" thing.
Scientifically this is true. A new human life begins at conception. I know Steve made the point that sperm cells and egg cells are living cells as well, but they aren't a distinctly new human life, just an extension of the mother/father. For a new human life to begin, you need a unique set of DNA with 46 chromosomes. This doesn't happen until conception.
That being said, IIRC the birth control pill will also sometimes actually dispense with an already fertilized egg (or zygote) prior to its implantation in the uterus. This isn't the main way that it prevents pregnancy, but sort of a last resort. So if you believe it to be immoral to kill a zygote then you should take issue with birth control pills as well.
But it seems like most people aren't AS concerned with an embryo being destroyed in the very early stages as they are with a more developed fetus. This is sort of how I feel as well. I believe in abortion but I think it should be done early. I am not versed enough on the science to determine exactly how early... but I do know that I believe if the fetus is near the stage of being able to survive outside of the womb (even in an incubator) then it does seem wrong to kill it at that point, unless of course there's some sort of medical emergency involved that is threatening the mother's life.
And honestly, I could see the time frame being pushed even further back. Somewhere where there's a reasonable enough time for the mother to discover the pregnancy and decide what to do with it before it developes too far.
This is why I have to disagree with Adam Poe where he says "it's not pro-choice people who struggle with when the concept of personhood begins." I believe if you are pro-choice and scientifically minded, this is precisely the kind of thing you would struggle with. Because it is not at all obvious IMO.
@Afrocheese The point I draw the line is gastrulation (about two weeks). Because that's the point where the cells go beyond just dividing and start actualizing their genetic potential and take on human characteristics, and because at that point it can no longer divide into twins or triplets so it can be definitively identified for the first time as a specific human life.
Originally posted by Afro Cheese
With regard to the whole "life begins at conception" thing.Scientifically this is true. A new human life begins at conception. I know Steve made the point that sperm cells and egg cells are living cells as well, but they aren't a distinctly new human life, just an extension of the mother/father. For a new human life to begin, you need a unique set of DNA with 46 chromosomes. This doesn't happen until conception.
That being said, IIRC the birth control pill will also sometimes actually dispense with an already fertilized egg (or zygote) prior to its implantation in the uterus. This isn't the main way that it prevents pregnancy, but sort of a last resort. So if you believe it to be immoral to kill a zygote then you should take issue with birth control pills as well.
But it seems like most people aren't AS concerned with an embryo being destroyed in the very early stages as they are with a more developed fetus. This is sort of how I feel as well. I believe in abortion but I think it should be done early. I am not versed enough on the science to determine exactly how early... but I do know that I believe if the fetus is near the stage of being able to survive outside of the womb (even in an incubator) then it does seem wrong to kill it at that point, unless of course there's some sort of medical emergency involved that is threatening the mother's life.
And honestly, I could see the time frame being pushed even further back. Somewhere where there's a reasonable enough time for the mother to discover the pregnancy and decide what to do with it before it developes too far.
This is why I have to disagree with Adam Poe where he says "it's not pro-choice people who struggle with when the concept of personhood begins." I believe if you are pro-choice and scientifically minded, this is precisely the kind of thing you would struggle with. Because it is not at all obvious IMO.
From what I have read, the odds of survival out of the womb being 50% or above does not happen until about 24 weeks. That's about 4 months. The abortion limit is 22-24 weeks for most states iirc. This seems a bit late to me, but not unreasonable.
Violating? No, you have it the opposite. The bible says to render under to Caesar what is Caesar's. That means pay your taxes.😂And the Bible most certainly does support communism (pure communism):
https://www.biblegateway.com/passag...=Acts%204:32-35
32 All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had.
33 With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all
34 that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales
35 and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need.
And Jesus told the rich man to sell all his posessions and give it to the poor:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passag...amp;version=NLT
21 Looking at the man, Jesus felt genuine love for him. “There is still one thing you haven’t done,” he told him. “Go and sell all your possessions and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
Oh DMB. 🙁