Total Posts:58|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

What makes us a person, and a fetus not?

zmikecuber
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2013 2:27:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
This isn't meant to be insulting to anyone. If I'm opening a can of worms, I'm sorry. If you're going to rant and rave about "womens' rights" and how religious bigots want to shove their beliefs down your throats, just stop. The question isn't about abortion, it's about what are the substantial differences between you and a fetus.

What do you think?

Aren't appearance/ability to reason/viability/birth all accidental changes, and not substantial changes?

How is a fetus substantially different than us?

I'm curious as to what you guys think.

Once again, this isn't about "abortion" or morality. We're not talking about killing a fetus. We're talking about the substantial differences between a "fetus" and a "person."
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2013 2:44:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/22/2013 2:40:53 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
You do NOT have a right to charity, Mr. fetus.

Lol
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2013 2:48:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/22/2013 2:47:17 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
Libertarians are dumb.

Trolls are too.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2013 2:49:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/22/2013 2:48:25 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 11/22/2013 2:47:17 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
Libertarians are dumb.

Trolls are too.

My IQ is genius level, actually.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2013 2:50:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/22/2013 2:27:34 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
This isn't meant to be insulting to anyone. If I'm opening a can of worms, I'm sorry. If you're going to rant and rave about "womens' rights" and how religious bigots want to shove their beliefs down your throats, just stop. The question isn't about abortion, it's about what are the substantial differences between you and a fetus.

What do you think?

Aren't appearance/ability to reason/viability/birth all accidental changes, and not substantial changes?

How is a fetus substantially different than us?

I'm curious as to what you guys think.

Once again, this isn't about "abortion" or morality. We're not talking about killing a fetus. We're talking about the substantial differences between a "fetus" and a "person."

The Fool: The key difference, is consciousness. Insects and trees are synonymously, living, but the key feature here, is sentience.

For it is only "sentient beings" that are a part of the moral community. It has nothing to do with human- like-ness, but having the possibility of suffering.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2013 2:51:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/22/2013 2:50:18 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 11/22/2013 2:27:34 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
This isn't meant to be insulting to anyone. If I'm opening a can of worms, I'm sorry. If you're going to rant and rave about "womens' rights" and how religious bigots want to shove their beliefs down your throats, just stop. The question isn't about abortion, it's about what are the substantial differences between you and a fetus.

What do you think?

Aren't appearance/ability to reason/viability/birth all accidental changes, and not substantial changes?

How is a fetus substantially different than us?

I'm curious as to what you guys think.

Once again, this isn't about "abortion" or morality. We're not talking about killing a fetus. We're talking about the substantial differences between a "fetus" and a "person."

The Fool: The key difference, is consciousness. Insects and trees are synonymously, living, but the key feature here, is sentience.

For it is only "sentient beings" that are a part of the moral community. It has nothing to do with human- like-ness, but having the possibility of suffering.

So then what happens to us when we go to sleep or get knocked unconscious?
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2013 2:51:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I think abortion is insanity, but then I have a more profound knowledge of human psychology than most people.
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2013 2:53:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/22/2013 2:51:50 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
I think abortion is insanity, but then I have a more profound knowledge of human psychology than most people.

We aren't talking about abortion.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2013 2:53:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/22/2013 2:53:25 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 11/22/2013 2:51:50 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
I think abortion is insanity, but then I have a more profound knowledge of human psychology than most people.

We aren't talking about abortion.

Of course we are.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2013 3:08:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/22/2013 2:51:35 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 11/22/2013 2:50:18 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 11/22/2013 2:27:34 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
This isn't meant to be insulting to anyone. If I'm opening a can of worms, I'm sorry. If you're going to rant and rave about "womens' rights" and how religious bigots want to shove their beliefs down your throats, just stop. The question isn't about abortion, it's about what are the substantial differences between you and a fetus.

What do you think?

Aren't appearance/ability to reason/viability/birth all accidental changes, and not substantial changes?

How is a fetus substantially different than us?

I'm curious as to what you guys think.

Once again, this isn't about "abortion" or morality. We're not talking about killing a fetus. We're talking about the substantial differences between a "fetus" and a "person."

The Fool: The key difference, is consciousness. Insects and trees are synonymously, living, but the key feature here, is sentience.

For it is only "sentient beings" that are a part of the moral community. It has nothing to do with human- like-ness, but having the possibility of suffering.

So then what happens to us when we go to sleep or get knocked unconscious?

The Fool: I'm sure you could've worked this out on your own, but obviously, it would be in reference to having been conscious, at least once, with the possibility of being conscious again.

Secondly, we cannot account for being unconscious completely when sleeping, As we know that we lose the memory of the last moments being away, and so we may still be conscious, at the time, But have no memory. The brain tends to indicate that we still receiving information while incomplete dreamless sleep..

It could have an adaptive function, in that actually remembering all your dreams, or all this unnecessary experiences, can cause you to conflate and confuse, your memories.
but I digress, the point is we know all too well, that memories of the dreams are quite sketchy and few in between.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2013 3:12:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
*Edit
At 11/22/2013 2:50:18 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 11/22/2013 2:27:34 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
This isn't meant to be insulting to anyone. If I'm opening a can of worms, I'm sorry. If you're going to rant and rave about "womens' rights" and how religious bigots want to shove their beliefs down your throats, just stop. The question isn't about abortion, it's about what are the substantial differences between you and a fetus.

What do you think?

Aren't appearance/ability to reason/viability/birth all accidental changes, and not substantial changes?

How is a fetus substantially different than us?

I'm curious as to what you guys think.

Once again, this isn't about "abortion" or morality. We're not talking about killing a fetus. We're talking about the substantial differences between a "fetus" and a "person."

The Fool: The key difference, is consciousness. Insects and trees are synonymously, living, but the key feature here, is sentience.

For it is only "sentient beings" that are a part of the moral community. It has nothing to do with human- like-ness, but having the possibility of suffering.

So then what happens to us when we go to sleep or get knocked unconscious?

The Fool: I'm sure you could've worked this out on your own, but obviously, it would be in reference to having been conscious, at least once, with the possibility of being conscious again.

Secondly, we cannot account for being unconscious completely when sleeping, As we know that we lose the memory of the last moments being away, and so we may still be conscious, at the time, but have no memory. The brain tends to indicate that we still receiving information while in complete dreamless sleep..

It should be obvious, by the fact that we do not consider, people to exist, Even though their carcass, is laying around, or even though their body is living, but their brain is a vegetable.
A living body, is not enough.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2013 3:13:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/22/2013 3:08:25 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 11/22/2013 2:51:35 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 11/22/2013 2:50:18 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 11/22/2013 2:27:34 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
This isn't meant to be insulting to anyone. If I'm opening a can of worms, I'm sorry. If you're going to rant and rave about "womens' rights" and how religious bigots want to shove their beliefs down your throats, just stop. The question isn't about abortion, it's about what are the substantial differences between you and a fetus.

What do you think?

Aren't appearance/ability to reason/viability/birth all accidental changes, and not substantial changes?

How is a fetus substantially different than us?

I'm curious as to what you guys think.

Once again, this isn't about "abortion" or morality. We're not talking about killing a fetus. We're talking about the substantial differences between a "fetus" and a "person."

The Fool: The key difference, is consciousness. Insects and trees are synonymously, living, but the key feature here, is sentience.

For it is only "sentient beings" that are a part of the moral community. It has nothing to do with human- like-ness, but having the possibility of suffering.

So then what happens to us when we go to sleep or get knocked unconscious?

The Fool: I'm sure you could've worked this out on your own, but obviously, it would be in reference to having been conscious, at least once, with the possibility of being conscious again.


So then it's not the actually being conscious, but rather the inherent ability to become conscious? Or is it that it was conscious at one time?

Secondly, we cannot account for being unconscious completely when sleeping, As we know that we lose the memory of the last moments being away, and so we may still be conscious, at the time, But have no memory. The brain tends to indicate that we still receiving information while incomplete dreamless sleep..


Ok. So what degree of consciousness do you mean by "being conscious" then? Doesn't a plant or any living organism "receive information" too?

It could have an adaptive function, in that actually remembering all your dreams, or all this unnecessary experiences, can cause you to conflate and confuse, your memories.
but I digress, the point is we know all too well, that memories of the dreams are quite sketchy and few in between.

Consciousness is an accidental quality of a substance though, isn't it?
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2013 3:15:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/22/2013 3:12:19 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
*Edit
At 11/22/2013 2:50:18 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 11/22/2013 2:27:34 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
This isn't meant to be insulting to anyone. If I'm opening a can of worms, I'm sorry. If you're going to rant and rave about "womens' rights" and how religious bigots want to shove their beliefs down your throats, just stop. The question isn't about abortion, it's about what are the substantial differences between you and a fetus.

What do you think?

Aren't appearance/ability to reason/viability/birth all accidental changes, and not substantial changes?

How is a fetus substantially different than us?

I'm curious as to what you guys think.

Once again, this isn't about "abortion" or morality. We're not talking about killing a fetus. We're talking about the substantial differences between a "fetus" and a "person."

The Fool: The key difference, is consciousness. Insects and trees are synonymously, living, but the key feature here, is sentience.

For it is only "sentient beings" that are a part of the moral community. It has nothing to do with human- like-ness, but having the possibility of suffering.

So then what happens to us when we go to sleep or get knocked unconscious?

The Fool: I'm sure you could've worked this out on your own, but obviously, it would be in reference to having been conscious, at least once, with the possibility of being conscious again.

Secondly, we cannot account for being unconscious completely when sleeping, As we know that we lose the memory of the last moments being away, and so we may still be conscious, at the time, but have no memory. The brain tends to indicate that we still receiving information while in complete dreamless sleep..

It should be obvious, by the fact that we do not consider, people to exist, Even though their carcass, is laying around, or even though their body is living, but their brain is a vegetable.
A living body, is not enough.

So if "I" don't have any awareness of the physical world, then "I" am no longer a person, correct?
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2013 3:43:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/22/2013 3:13:47 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
Once again, this isn't about "abortion" or morality. We're not talking about killing a fetus. We're talking about the substantial differences between a "fetus" and a "person."

The Fool:, I got it right the first time.
The key difference, is consciousness.
Why?

"it is only "sentient beings" that are a part of the moral community.
That is, beings who "Have been conscious, at least once, with the possibility of being conscious again." or who Conscious enough to" have the possibility, of suffering."

Loaded question fallacy count:
1. So then it's not the actually being conscious, but rather the inherent ability to become conscious?
2. Or is it that it was conscious at one time?
3. Ok. So what degree of consciousness do you mean by "being conscious" then?
4. Doesn't a plant or any living organism "receive information" too?

Non sequitur fallacy Count.
1. Consciousness is an accidental quality of a substance though, isn't it?

The Fool: Chalk it up!

Bang Bang.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2013 3:46:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/22/2013 3:43:43 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 11/22/2013 3:13:47 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
Once again, this isn't about "abortion" or morality. We're not talking about killing a fetus. We're talking about the substantial differences between a "fetus" and a "person."



The Fool:, I got it right the first time.
The key difference, is consciousness.
Why?

"it is only "sentient beings" that are a part of the moral community.
That is, beings who "Have been conscious, at least once, with the possibility of being conscious again." or who Conscious enough to" have the possibility, of suffering."


Loaded question fallacy count:
1. So then it's not the actually being conscious, but rather the inherent ability to become conscious?
2. Or is it that it was conscious at one time?
3. Ok. So what degree of consciousness do you mean by "being conscious" then?
4. Doesn't a plant or any living organism "receive information" too?

Non sequitur fallacy Count.
1. Consciousness is an accidental quality of a substance though, isn't it?

The Fool: Chalk it up!

Bang Bang.



Okay then...
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2013 4:01:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/22/2013 3:46:59 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 11/22/2013 3:43:43 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 11/22/2013 3:13:47 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
Once again, this isn't about "abortion" or morality. We're not talking about killing a fetus. We're talking about the substantial differences between a "fetus" and a "person."



The Fool:, I got it right the first time.
The key difference, is consciousness.
Why?

"it is only "sentient beings" that are a part of the moral community.
That is, beings who "Have been conscious, at least once, with the possibility of being conscious again." or who Conscious enough to" have the possibility, of suffering."


Loaded question fallacy count:
1. So then it's not the actually being conscious, but rather the inherent ability to become conscious?
2. Or is it that it was conscious at one time?
3. Ok. So what degree of consciousness do you mean by "being conscious" then?
4. Doesn't a plant or any living organism "receive information" too?

Non sequitur fallacy Count.
1. Consciousness is an accidental quality of a substance though, isn't it?

The Fool: Chalk it up!

Bang Bang.



Okay then...

<(89)
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2013 4:10:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/22/2013 4:01:19 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 11/22/2013 3:46:59 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 11/22/2013 3:43:43 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 11/22/2013 3:13:47 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
Once again, this isn't about "abortion" or morality. We're not talking about killing a fetus. We're talking about the substantial differences between a "fetus" and a "person."



The Fool:, I got it right the first time.
The key difference, is consciousness.
Why?

"it is only "sentient beings" that are a part of the moral community.
That is, beings who "Have been conscious, at least once, with the possibility of being conscious again." or who Conscious enough to" have the possibility, of suffering."


Loaded question fallacy count:
1. So then it's not the actually being conscious, but rather the inherent ability to become conscious?
2. Or is it that it was conscious at one time?
3. Ok. So what degree of consciousness do you mean by "being conscious" then?
4. Doesn't a plant or any living organism "receive information" too?

Non sequitur fallacy Count.
1. Consciousness is an accidental quality of a substance though, isn't it?

The Fool: Chalk it up!

Bang Bang.



Okay then...

<(89)

I was trying to understand your position, and ask honest questions about it. But nevermind.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2013 8:15:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/22/2013 4:10:09 PM, zmikecuber wrote:

At 11/22/2013 3:13:47 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
Once again, this isn't about "abortion" or morality. We're not talking about killing a fetus. We're talking about the substantial differences between a "fetus" and a "person."



The Fool:, I got it right the first time.
The key difference, is consciousness.
Why?

"it is only "sentient beings" that are a part of the moral community.
That is, beings who "Have been conscious, at least once, with the possibility of being conscious again." or who Conscious enough to" have the possibility, of suffering."


Loaded question fallacy count:
1. So then it's not the actually being conscious, but rather the inherent ability to become conscious?
2. Or is it that it was conscious at one time?
3. Ok. So what degree of consciousness do you mean by "being conscious" then?
4. Doesn't a plant or any living organism "receive information" too?

Non sequitur fallacy Count.
1. Consciousness is an accidental quality of a substance though, isn't it?

The Fool: Chalk it up!

Bang Bang.



Okay then...

<(89)

I was trying to understand your position, and ask honest questions about it.

Zmikecuber: I was trying to understand your position, and ask honest questions about it.

The Fool: Firstly, it's not a position. But a straightforward answer, to your own question.

"How is a fetus substantially different than us?"

Where the unmistakable essential difference, is a capacity to suffer,,

If you do not intuitively understand that, without an explanation, then you can't, by nature, intentionally, act morally. As any intention without regards to sentience, is an at best an a-moral one.

Zmikecuber: But Nevermind

The Fool: Aww..

<(80)

Yes, it is unfortunate, that such "neverminds" like yourself, never but speak their very minds.
in fact, it's ironic.

<(89)

For it is the same that confuse opinions, and observations, whom are nonetheless oblivious, to conscious sensations. As such answers are obvious to the crazy and even the saner, in fact it's fair to say, it was a no-brainer.

<(8D)

Ah-ba-Bang..
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2013 10:40:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/22/2013 8:22:40 PM, Bullish wrote:
The simple answer: one is born and one isn't.

But isn't birth just a change of environment? It wouldn't seem that changing the environment of something would change the substance of it. If I go outside in the snow, or go swimming in a pool, I'm still a "person"...

Or cutting the umbilical cord. If I were to somehow get my food from someone else, would I cease to be a person?

How exactly is birth a substantial change?
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2013 10:48:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/22/2013 8:15:04 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 11/22/2013 4:10:09 PM, zmikecuber wrote:

At 11/22/2013 3:13:47 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
Once again, this isn't about "abortion" or morality. We're not talking about killing a fetus. We're talking about the substantial differences between a "fetus" and a "person."



The Fool:, I got it right the first time.
The key difference, is consciousness.
Why?

"it is only "sentient beings" that are a part of the moral community.
That is, beings who "Have been conscious, at least once, with the possibility of being conscious again." or who Conscious enough to" have the possibility, of suffering."


Loaded question fallacy count:
1. So then it's not the actually being conscious, but rather the inherent ability to become conscious?
2. Or is it that it was conscious at one time?
3. Ok. So what degree of consciousness do you mean by "being conscious" then?
4. Doesn't a plant or any living organism "receive information" too?

Non sequitur fallacy Count.
1. Consciousness is an accidental quality of a substance though, isn't it?

The Fool: Chalk it up!

Bang Bang.



Okay then...

<(89)

I was trying to understand your position, and ask honest questions about it.


Zmikecuber: I was trying to understand your position, and ask honest questions about it.

The Fool: Firstly, it's not a position. But a straightforward answer, to your own question.

"How is a fetus substantially different than us?"

It's both. If I say "Does God exist?" and you say "no"... You're taking a position, as well as giving me an answer.


Where the unmistakable essential difference, is a capacity to suffer,,


What do you mean by "suffer"? Also, I believe that this would be a case of property, since the capacity to suffer follows necessarily and exclusively from "person" but is said of person "non-essentially."

If you do not intuitively understand that, without an explanation, then you can't, by nature, intentionally, act morally. As any intention without regards to sentience, is an at best an a-moral one.


So then when exactly does an embryo become a person? After birth sometime?

Zmikecuber: But Nevermind

The Fool: Aww..

<(80)

Yes, it is unfortunate, that such "neverminds" like yourself, never but speak their very minds.
in fact, it's ironic.

<(89)

For it is the same that confuse opinions, and observations, whom are nonetheless oblivious, to conscious sensations. As such answers are obvious to the crazy and even the saner, in fact it's fair to say, it was a no-brainer.

<(8D)

Ah-ba-Bang..
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
Bullish
Posts: 3,527
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2013 2:06:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/22/2013 10:40:44 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 11/22/2013 8:22:40 PM, Bullish wrote:
The simple answer: one is born and one isn't.

But isn't birth just a change of environment? It wouldn't seem that changing the environment of something would change the substance of it. If I go outside in the snow, or go swimming in a pool, I'm still a "person"...

Or cutting the umbilical cord. If I were to somehow get my food from someone else, would I cease to be a person?

How exactly is birth a substantial change?

Is there not a change? Why attach this "substantiality" that may or may not matter to it? Although the difference between a sedan and an SUV seems to be their size and horsepower, the only real difference is the shape of the trunk.
0x5f3759df
Wren_cyborg
Posts: 241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2013 7:17:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
There is only one meaningful distinction, and that is intelligence. Personhood rests on intelligence alone.
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2013 7:36:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/23/2013 2:06:47 PM, Bullish wrote:
At 11/22/2013 10:40:44 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 11/22/2013 8:22:40 PM, Bullish wrote:
The simple answer: one is born and one isn't.

But isn't birth just a change of environment? It wouldn't seem that changing the environment of something would change the substance of it. If I go outside in the snow, or go swimming in a pool, I'm still a "person"...

Or cutting the umbilical cord. If I were to somehow get my food from someone else, would I cease to be a person?

How exactly is birth a substantial change?

Is there not a change? Why attach this "substantiality" that may or may not matter to it? Although the difference between a sedan and an SUV seems to be their size and horsepower, the only real difference is the shape of the trunk.

If a fetus and you are substantially different, then a substantial change must occur, when the fetus becomes a person. Birth is an accidental change.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2013 7:38:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/23/2013 4:18:33 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
These are just labels. It don't care if you call it a fetus or a person, it doesn't matter.

If a person and a fetus are substantially different, and a fetus is what becomes a person, then a substantial change must occur somewhere in its growth. If there is no substantial change, and only accidental change, then essentially a person and a fetus are the same thing.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."