[quote]pat wrote:
Having a mind doesn’t make you a person. Neither is personality. Those are traits of a person, parts if you will. [/quote]
How do you define a person?
If you don’t have a mind, then you’re just an object made of flesh.
Separate from what? Those “autonomous” embryos that don’t attach to the womb die. It’s not autonomous at all.
Stop pushing obtuse shit. You’re supposed to be against it.
Well then, just remove the embryo and drop their asses (which they don’t yet have, use the metaphorical one) on the Earth, they will be just fine. Seeing as they’re just as autonomous as I am, as long as a planet is provided.
[quote]pat wrote:
Having a mind doesn’t make you a person.[/quote]
Yes it does. No other creature has one. Brains other creatures may have but not minds (as far as we know). An a mind is not a real object. It is an abstraction the qualities that make humans what they are. By definition having a mind makes one human.
A mind can only form once outside of he womb. It happens the very instant the sense become aware and start “recording” data in the brain.
[quote]pookie wrote:
pat wrote:
No it does not. The properties do not exists until the two come together. They are not “added” together. When they come together, they become something else that neither the sperm or egg had previously. The whole is greater than the some of it’s parts.
Er, no. If you watch the entire process under microscope, you’ll notice that at no time is any law of physics violated.
There’s no creation ex nihilo taking place, no magic involved, just a bunch of run-of-the-mill chemical reactions. A lot of them, in an amazingly complex process, but the whole is exactly the sum of both cells, with time and external nutrients added.
I thought you were against obtuse shit being passed on as truth?
[/quote]
It just show’s what an 8th grade education can teach you. Or did I learn this in 7th grade?.. Anyway, he got destroyed there. Nice one.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
pat wrote:
Having a mind doesn’t make you a person.
Yes it does. No other creature has one. Brains other creatures may have but not minds (as far as we know). An a mind is not a real object. It is an abstraction the qualities that make humans what they are. By definition having a mind makes one human.
A mind can only form once outside of he womb. It happens the very instant the sense become aware and start “recording” data in the brain.[/quote]
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
mind Audio Help /maɪnd/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[mahynd] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
�??noun
a way of thinking and feeling; disposition; temper:
I’m pretty sure I’ve seen pissed of dogs (Aka temper), that would lead me to believe he has a mind?
opinion, view, or sentiments:
I know for sure that animal’s have made choices, which means they had an opinion on that situation?
remembrance or recollection; memory:
Don’t deer remember where water sources are? Hence game trails?
(in a human or other conscious being) the element, part, substance, or process that reasons, thinks, feels, wills, perceives, judges, etc
Not quite sure what the hell your thinking there buddy, but perhaps I’m just completely off with all these comments?
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
pat wrote:
Having a mind doesn’t make you a person.
Yes it does. No other creature has one. Brains other creatures may have but not minds (as far as we know). An a mind is not a real object. It is an abstraction the qualities that make humans what they are. By definition having a mind makes one human.
A mind can only form once outside of he womb. It happens the very instant the sense become aware and start “recording” data in the brain.[/quote]
You are assuming. It can be argued that some animals have minds. There certainly is evidence of rational and reasoning at a low level in some creatures, but it is not knowable.
The mind is the total collective capabilities of rationality. It is what allows us to reason verses just follow instinctive behavior.
A deer can find water and remember where it is (instinct) but has no concept of thinking to look for another way to the source should there be a landslide that blocks its path, for example. That would require a mind.
[quote]pat wrote:
You are assuming. It can be argued that some animals have minds. There certainly is evidence of rational and reasoning at a low level in some creatures, but it is not knowable.[/quote]
Sure, for argument’s sake let us make the assumption that dogs have minds, for example. Knowing what the mind is – the collective capabilities of reason – can the mind exist in the womb before an animal has the ability to sense things?
I argue that it cannot form without data. A fetus has the potential to form a mind and that is largely attributed to environment and other nature given factors.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
The mind is the total collective capabilities of rationality. It is what allows us to reason verses just follow instinctive behavior.
A deer can find water and remember where it is (instinct) but has no concept of thinking to look for another way to the source should there be a landslide that blocks its path, for example. That would require a mind.[/quote]
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
pat wrote:
You are assuming. It can be argued that some animals have minds. There certainly is evidence of rational and reasoning at a low level in some creatures, but it is not knowable.
Sure, for argument’s sake let us make the assumption that dogs have minds, for example. Knowing what the mind is – the collective capabilities of reason – can the mind exist in the womb before an animal has the ability to sense things?
I argue that it cannot form without data. A fetus has the potential to form a mind and that is largely attributed to environment and other nature given factors.[/quote]
You do not know much about babies either. A fetus has senses that function in the womb and it responds to external stimuli at a very young age.
[quote]pookie wrote:
pat wrote:
Having a mind doesn’t make you a person. Neither is personality. Those are traits of a person, parts if you will.
How do you define a person?
[/quote]
This is good enough for me.
No your just a mindless person. Useless, missing an essential component, but mind is not a total person…What good is the mind without a heart, or lungs or blood?
My dog thinks and has a personality is it a person?
Being dependent does not make you the same thing as that which you are dependent. Like my earth analogy, we are dependent on it for survival, but we are not earth itself, though we are made up of it.
A baby freshly shot out of a pussy is no less dependent. Just 'cause it’s sucking a tit doesn’t make it a boob.
[quote]pat wrote:
You are assuming. It can be argued that some animals have minds. There certainly is evidence of rational and reasoning at a low level in some creatures, but it is not knowable.[/quote]
I’d argue that many animals have minds. Even my guinea pigs exhibit different “personalities” and show extremely limited ability in understanding “abstract” concepts. I’m sure yours do the same.
It’s probably more useful to see “a mind” as a scale going from extremely low mental ability all the way up to super-genius. Most mammals would probably fit somewhere at the bottom of the scale.
But to bring this back on topic, I see the destruction of a mind as being worse than the destruction of something which doesn’t yet have one.
Hence my position on having less problem with 1st trimester abortions (except for the obvious fact that the stupid dumbasses involved should wake the fuck up and use birth control instead); but being opposed to 3rd trimester ones.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
pat wrote:
You are assuming. It can be argued that some animals have minds. There certainly is evidence of rational and reasoning at a low level in some creatures, but it is not knowable.
Sure, for argument’s sake let us make the assumption that dogs have minds, for example. Knowing what the mind is – the collective capabilities of reason – can the mind exist in the womb before an animal has the ability to sense things?
I argue that it cannot form without data. A fetus has the potential to form a mind and that is largely attributed to environment and other nature given factors.[/quote]
Are you arguing that a baby while in womb is completely senseless? There are multiple evidences that baby’s in utero can feel pain, react to sounds, etc. Actually they can do this from the 2nd trimester.
[quote]pookie wrote:
pat wrote:
You are assuming. It can be argued that some animals have minds. There certainly is evidence of rational and reasoning at a low level in some creatures, but it is not knowable.
I’d argue that many animals have minds. Even my guinea pigs exhibit different “personalities” and show extremely limited ability in understanding “abstract” concepts. I’m sure yours do the same.
It’s probably more useful to see “a mind” as a scale going from extremely low mental ability all the way up to super-genius. Most mammals would probably fit somewhere at the bottom of the scale.
But to bring this back on topic, I see the destruction of a mind as being worse than the destruction of something which doesn’t yet have one. Hence my position on having less problem with 1st trimester abortions (except for the obvious fact that the stupid dumbasses involved should wake the fuck up and use birth control instead); but being opposed to 3rd trimester ones.
[/quote]
3rd trimester is a good start, though very few abortions happen then.
15 definitions… I think I’ll go back to “mind.” It’ll save some time.
Same difference. The only relationships you can have with a mindless person are the ones you could have with your car or with an inflatable doll.
That’s just the supporting plumbing. If you could transfer your mind into something else, you’d still be “you” minus the body.
What? I don’t know what point you’re trying to make here, but I’m pretty sure that when you get to the point where planet removal is part of your argument, you’ve just lost that argument.
So the embryo is autonomous, but the freshly born baby is dependent? Make up your mind, will ya?
[quote]pat wrote:
Are you arguing that a baby while in womb is completely senseless? There are multiple evidences that baby’s in utero can feel pain, react to sounds, etc. Actually they can do this from the 2nd trimester.[/quote]
How does anyone know what a fetus is capable of sensing if it cannot communicate? Feelings are impossible inside the womb. One first needs the concepts of them.
That is essentially why we cannot know the “minds” of other animals – communication is necessary – and that doesn’t happen with out a mind either. Concepts are part of the mind and they can only form with language.
I will agree that animals have very rudimentary language but conception is impossible without the function of words.
[quote]pookie wrote:
Well, again I have to disagree. No where did I intend to equate a fetus with an adult in a vegetative state in every way conceivable. The point was to illustrate that life, without mind, is not valued in the same way.
[/quote]
And my point is that life with the potential for mind is valued in our society in circumstances other than abortion.
What’s the significant difference between gaining and regaining a functional brain?
Valid human was a bad term to use. Something more like “has value as a life”. As to where it begins, to be honest I can’t think of a point that isn’t arbitrary in a completely rational sense(as per your reduction to jumping every fertile woman you can see), and so I let myself go with what “feels” right.
For me, if a pregnant woman is attacked it seems more wrong than if anyone else is attacked. I can’t dissociate from this when speaking of abortion, and so that’s the way I see it.
Not to say I think I’m necessarily right, but everyone has their level of comfort and mine ends before abortion becomes an option.
Do we have to argue this every couple of weeks? It’s already within an individual human’s life cycle. It’s a done deal folks. You break that chain anywhere along a human’s life cycle…