Abortion

Originally posted by leonheartmm
i didnt say it was, i said its POSSIBLY alive after that. all i know is that without the base complexity of the higher brain, self awareness can not form, it requires ATLEAST THAT MUCH to even have a chance at forming. i do not claim to know any specifics beyond that.

Actually, you said "probably", denoting a high chance.

As DDM mentioned, self awareness doesn't happen until sometime AFTER birth, ergo, by your reasoning, killing a baby up to a certain age is not murder, just more abortion. Did you corn-hole your own logic, I think you did.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Unfortunately for you, there is a problem in your logic from a scientific perspective.

The complete nucleotide sequence that can be "observed" in that clump of cells is actually what would define it as a complete human. (We don't have to call it a human being, as other's have pointed it out.) Until a complete set of DNA can be retrieved from that "new life" mass, it is just as worthless as any single sperm or egg.

What this could mean is a future restructuring of abortion laws in the future. As DNA becomes more important, we could see abortion almost completely eliminated.

Robtard is trying to illustrate to you that a sperm is not on par with a zygote in terms of a human life. Nor is an egg. From a scientific perspective, he is absolutely correct. Even contemporary religious freaks would agree with Robtard, for the most part. (Some idiots still interpret the "seed" part to be sacred...idiots.)

In other words, Robard's right and you're logic is flawed when it comes to the zygote versus egg and sperm.

You can disagree if you like but would you be correct in disagreeing? I think not. There were several psychological studies done to measure "self-awareness". I think the age was found to be on average of 9 months. inimalist would know more than I would, so let's ask him for some sources. Why is that important? Because it can provide a scientific justification for abortion even at 5 months out of the womb. HAHAHAHAHA! 😈 😈 😈 😈

but that is not science at all dadudemon. i do not consider dna to be representative of HUMAN life, it is simply one of the MANY prequisites. toenails and hairs as well as most individual cells in DEVELOPED humans have a full neucleotide sequence as opposed to the heploid number, and yet we dont consider them LIFE. as do stem cells in the umblical cord. do remember that PHYSICALLY, these are no difference than a fertilised egg. so why give one the rights of a human individual and others not???? to me, its very simple, to be an INDIVIDUAL, you have to have a basic sense of conciousness/existance/self awareness, and that, as far as i know, comes from brain activity. so there my reply

actually the kind of self awareness you are referring to is intellectual. it is true obviously that with developing cognitive and reasoning facilites, one can ponder more and internally reflect with greater ability, your self awareness can MATURE to a greater degree with every apiphany/rich life experience you have. but instincyually, basically, the fact that human babies ARE aware of their surrounding and have distinct personalities and individual differences even right after birth is evidence enough for me of the existance of a conciousness.

Originally posted by Robtard
Actually, you said "probably", denoting a high chance.

As DDM mentioned, self awareness doesn't happen until sometime AFTER birth, ergo, by your reasoning, killing a baby up to a certain age is not murder, just more abortion. Did you corn-hole your own logic, I think you did.

but u didnt wait for my answer to dadudemon in your haste to defame me, hence you failed miserably yet again.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
but u didnt wait for my answer to dadudemon in your haste to defame me, hence you failed miserably yet again.

Na, that post didn't help.

"you have to have a basic sense of conciousness/existance/self awareness" -leonheartmm And it can be argued that newborns don't and are functioning on insinct alone, not concious of self.

Ergo, you butt****ed your whole argument you were vomitting out for the last several pages. Sorry.

Originally posted by Robtard
Na, that post didn't help.

"you have to have a basic sense of conciousness/existance/self awareness" -leonheartmm And it can be argued that newborns don't and are functioning on insinct alone, not concious of self.

Ergo, you butt****ed your whole argument you were vomitting out for the last several pages. Sorry.

im sure it didnt help YOU. what would i wonder..........

how can you argue that when newborns have individual differences/individual preferences and do things which dont have a survival function?

reported. sorry.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
im sure it didnt help YOU. what would i wonder..........

how can you argue that when newborns have individual differences/individual preferences and do things which dont have a survival function?

reported. sorry.

No, it didn't help me, what an odd thing to say.

It's called psychology, boy. Google "when do babies become self aware", there are loads of papers on the subject.

Reported me for posting in kind? Okay, have fun with that.

wonder if he really reported.... that would be great. I've been trying to get Robtard out of here for years.

Originally posted by Mairuzu
wonder if he really reported.... that would be great. I've been trying to get Robtard out of here for years.

Reported.

ban him before it goes through!

Originally posted by Robtard
No, it didn't help me, what an odd thing to say.

It's called psychology, boy. Google "when do babies become self aware", there are loads of papers on the subject.

Reported me for posting in kind? Okay, have fun with that.

youre slow arent you.....

please dont try to educate ME on psychology, you will find that you are sorely lacking. oh wait, you wont, but every1 else will, a reasonable compromise by any standard.

Originally posted by Mairuzu
ban him before it goes through!

dont worry, im sure it was a revenge report on his part, even though i dont speak for him.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
dont worry, im sure it was a revenge report on his part, even though i dont speak for him.

I didn't actually report Mairuzu, you.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
youre slow arent you.....

please dont try to educate ME on psychology, you will find that you are sorely lacking. oh wait, you wont, but every1 else will, a reasonable compromise by any standard.

So now you do know when a baby becomes self-ware, which is it, oh psychological-master?

your comprehension skills are to blame again. i said i only know when it ISNT aware and it isnt aware before 2.5 months.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
but that is not science at all dadudemon.

I'm sorry, bro, but it really is. When did mapping a specific organism's entire nucleotide sequence (individualizing the "specimen"😉 cease to be science?

Originally posted by leonheartmm
i do not consider dna to be representative of HUMAN life,

I would agree with this statement...because DNA can represent millions of different species. 😄

Originally posted by leonheartmm
it is simply one of the MANY prequisites. toenails and hairs as well as most individual cells in DEVELOPED humans have a full neucleotide sequence as opposed to the heploid number, and yet we dont consider them LIFE. as do stem cells in the umblical cord. do remember that PHYSICALLY, these are no difference than a fertilised egg. so why give one the rights of a human individual and others not???? to me, its very simple, to be an INDIVIDUAL, you have to have a basic sense of conciousness/existance/self awareness, and that, as far as i know, comes from brain activity. so there my reply

I can never change your incorrect perception because you still assume a shock wave for a nuclear blast, after it exits fireball, travels at hypersonic speeds. 😄

A person who refuses to acknowledge fault after being shown that they were inexorably wrong (with no excuse to argue the point in any way shape or form) has obvious logic issues and a reality distortion problem.

Also, what you did above is called strawman. That is not what was being argued. What WAS being argued was the difference, ethically and scientifically, between a sperm and egg, and a zygote. I even made it easier on you and went to a clump of stem cells that could be identified as a specific individual in the human species by mapping the complete set of DNA for that "person".

I still think you're cool, no matter who distorted or difficult it is to argue with you. This is just a silly internet debate in the end. 😄

Originally posted by leonheartmm
actually the kind of self awareness you are referring to is intellectual. it is true obviously that with developing cognitive and reasoning facilites, one can ponder more and internally reflect with greater ability, your self awareness can MATURE to a greater degree with every apiphany/rich life experience you have. but instincyually, basically, the fact that human babies ARE aware of their surrounding and have distinct personalities and individual differences even right after birth is evidence enough for me of the existance of a conciousness.

Then you don't understand basic animal programming versus higher brain function. 😐 Try to move beyond the brain stem. 😄 (Yes, inimalist, I know it isn't all brain stem, I'm just making a joke. 🙁 )

Edit- Self-awareness is considered a higher brain function. Something that doesn't occur to well after birth. It doesn't occur in the vast majority higher species. I'm not talking about a wolf keeping it's bleeding leg out of the way in a small scuffle with a pack member, I'm talking about seeing oneself in the mirror and knowing that it is "you". There's more than one way to identify "self-awareness" than just that way. But you get the point, right?

Originally posted by Mairuzu
wonder if he really reported.... that would be great. I've been trying to get Robtard out of here for years.

He's made several reports over this thread and the smoking one today. All of which are bs.

I'm sorry, bro, but it really is. When did mapping a specific organism's entire nucleotide sequence (individualizing the "specimen"😉 cease to be science?

never, however, associating the mapped genome and our ability to identify it in cells with the phenomenon of LIFE is not science.

I would agree with this statement...because DNA can represent millions of different species. 😄

DOH!!!!!!! {slaps face}

I can never change your incorrect perception because you still assume a shock wave for a nuclear blast, after it exits fireball, travels at hypersonic speeds. 😄

A person who refuses to acknowledge fault after being shown that they were inexorably wrong (with no excuse to argue the point in any way shape or form) has obvious logic issues and a reality distortion problem.

i dont. fireball and shockwave are different, but i was always referring to the shockwave and how fast it expanded, not the fireball and how fast THAT expanded. you misunderstood from the beginning.

Also, what you did above is called strawman. That is not what was being argued. What WAS being argued was the difference, ethically and scientifically, between a sperm and egg, and a zygote. I even made it easier on you and went to a clump of stem cells that could be identified as a specific individual in the human species by mapping the complete set of DNA for that "person".

I still think you're cool, no matter who distorted or difficult it is to argue with you. This is just a silly internet debate in the end. 😄

lol, i think i know pretty well by now what a strawman is. i still dont understand how you can argue that having a deploid chromosome is the same as having LIFE, and i havent seen an argument yet made on those lines.

Then you don't understand basic animal programming versus higher brain function. 😐 Try to move beyond the brain stem. 😄 (Yes, inimalist, I know it isn't all brain stem, I'm just making a joke. 🙁 )

i do actually. and my point about individual difference between animal programming and actions which have no survival/evolutionary significance in newborns is evidence that there IS higher brian function.

Edit- Self-awareness is considered a higher brain function. Something that doesn't occur to well after birth. It doesn't occur in the vast majority higher species. I'm not talking about a wolf keeping it's bleeding leg out of the way in a small scuffle with a pack member, I'm talking about seeing oneself in the mirror and knowing that it is "you". There's more than one way to identify "self-awareness" than just that way. But you get the point, right?

it OCCURING, or you REALISING its presence is based on intellect, however, its PRESENCE in based in our most basic feelings and exist independatly of identifying. what you are referring to is self IMAGE. im talking about the aware of one's EXISTANCE as an entity, as opposed to being a philosophical zombie.

yea, ur cool too.

Originally posted by BackFire
He's made several reports over this thread and the smoking one today. All of which are bs.

your MEAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And you're spamming the recycle bin with reports of spamming and flaming all while calling people tools and other such things. Knock it off.

Originally posted by BackFire
And you're spamming the recycle bin with reports of spamming and flaming all while calling people tools and other such things. Knock it off.

i only called him a tool in response to him calling me a cretin FIRST. if you actually read back, i didnt start the namecalling and personal insults. and i only really use the tamer ones in response to another insult specifically, perhaps you wud seem fairer if you repremanded the other party first. unless...... you dont care.

So the "he called me a poopyface first' defense.

I'm back in third grade.

I'm not repremanding anyone for name calling, I just don't want you spamming our recycle bin complaining about people being mean to you when you're doing the same thing as them.