I’m not rationally obligated to find your claim the slightest bit convincing. Why do you think it’s incorrect?I know of no philosophers who consider that to be the definition of sentience, but if they do say that, then yes, they are incorrect. Again, it is the very definition of the word. Saying it means something other than what it is really defined as is, by it’s nature, incorrect.
Agonizing pain? Can you post a specific video? Moreover, even if fetuses develop the capacity to suffer at some point, it’s clear that in the very early stages they don’t have that capacity - so there is no harm at all in killing them.And no, the same is not true of fetuses. They certainly have the capacity to suffer. It will be grotesque, but go on youtube and watch an abortion being performed using an internal camera (there are several videos). You will see clearly that the fetus is in agonizing pain as it is literally being ripped limb from limb.
informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.3109/14767059209161911?journalCode=jmfspencelo: I don’t mean to highjack the thread and turn it into an argument, but I’m wondering exactly when you believe sentience begins? Do you have any studies to show where your opinion comes from?
Are you serious? Because it disagrees with the very definition of the word. It is, by it’s nature, incorrect. You might as well be asking me why I think 2+2=5 is incorrect.I’m not rationally obligated to find your claim the slightest bit convincing. Why do you think it’s incorrect?
I’m not sure the ToS would allow me to post such a video, and honestly, I’m on thin ice right now with the rules, though I believe it unjust, it’s a moot point. I’m not going to skirt the rules because of it. Just do a search on youtube for it. As I said before, there are many videos of the procedure being performed.Agonizing pain? Can you post a specific video? Moreover, even if fetuses develop the capacity to suffer at some point, it’s clear that in the very early stages they don’t have that capacity - so there is no harm at all in killing them.
It’s not a difficult or complicated issue at all. By definition (and you can consult pretty much any medical dictionary or biology textbook on the planet), at the moment of conception, it is alive and it is human. As the saying goes, if scientists found a single celled organism on Mars, they would gleefully exclaim that they had discovered life on other planets, so why would it not be life at a single cell inside the womb? Intentional killing is an intrinsic evil, and abortion is intentional killing.informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.3109/14767059209161911?journalCode=jmf
I will admit that abortion is a complicated philosophical issue, but I hope pro-lifers would admit that as well. It’s certainly NOT obvious at all that a week-old fetus should have any right to life. Questions are trickier further down the pregnancy.
Your position assumes it’s a necessary truth that sentience means self-consciousness, but that certainly isn’t obvious to me. To say “it just is” doesn’t help matters; it’s merely a dogmatic assertion.Are you serious? Because it disagrees with the very definition of the word. It is, by it’s nature, incorrect. You might as well be asking me why I think 2+2=5 is incorrect.
Graphic videos, in themselves, don’t illustrate very much.I’m not sure the ToS would allow me to post such a video, and honestly, I’m on thin ice right now with the rules, though I believe it unjust, it’s a moot point. I’m not going to skirt the rules because of it. Just do a search on youtube for it. As I said before, there are many videos of the procedure being performed.
Harm is, of course, broader than the mere ability to feel pain, and there are many different types of pain - such as mental pain. I do not define harm strictly in terms of pain. But if a being isn’t sentient - that is, no capacity for pain or suffering whatsoever - then that being can’t be harmed. It would be like kicking a rock. An early fetus is like a rock in terms of lacking any subjectivity, awareness or capacity to feel pain and suffer.But even so, harm is not defined as ability to feel pain, so you cannot simply say that there is no harm just because there is no physical pain. There is a condition called congenital analgesia, in which a person is physically incapable of feeling pain. By your definition, it would be impossible to do them harm. You could cut their arm off in their sleep, but because they don’t feel the pain, by your meaning, you are not harming them. That is simply ludicrous.
Not necessarily. I do not believe I can harm a human who is brain dead (no consciousness) and merely surviving on life-support.Plus killing is, by it’s nature, an act of harm anyway.
Plants are alive too - is it an intrinsic evil to intentionally kill plants? The mere fact of being alive doesn’t amount to much, IMO.It’s not a difficult or complicated issue at all. By definition (and you can consult pretty much any medical dictionary or biology textbook on the planet), at the moment of conception, it is alive and it is human. As the saying goes, if scientists found a single celled organism on Mars, they would gleefully exclaim that they had discovered life on other planets, so why would it not be life at a single cell inside the womb? Intentional killing is an intrinsic evil, and abortion is intentional killing.
The Constitution explicitly refers to “persons,” which the unborn are not.Furthermore, the constitution of the U.S. specifically guarantees the right to life (liberty, and the pursuit of happiness) to all people and to their progeny. Progeny is future offspring - those not yet born! So the constitution is specifically extending the right to life to the unborn.
It’s not clear and dry at all. Even Justice Scalia doesn’t think the unborn are persons within the meaning of the Constitution!This is a very cut and dry, black and white issue. They’re alive, by definition. They’re human, by definition. They have the right to life according to the constitution, end of story.
Then perhaps you should try to consult a dictionary. You’re being ridiculous.Your position assumes it’s a necessary truth that sentience means self-consciousness, but that certainly isn’t obvious to me. To say “it just is” doesn’t help matters; it’s merely a dogmatic assertion.
Feeling and sensation do not necessarily mean physical pain."feeling or sensation as distinguished from perception and thought "
Try actually watching it and see what it does or doesn’t illustrate.Graphic videos, in themselves, don’t illustrate very much.
You have consistently been defining harm as mere physical pain, as everyone here can see. If you’re just going to up and change the definition when it suits you, it’s no wonder you don’t grasp the issue.Harm is, of course, broader than the mere ability to feel pain, and there are many different types of pain - such as mental pain. I do not define harm strictly in terms of pain. But if a being isn’t sentient - that is, no capacity for pain or suffering whatsoever - then that being can’t be harmed. It would be like kicking a rock. An early fetus is like a rock in terms of lacking any subjectivity, awareness or capacity to feel pain and suffer.
Once again, you thus must have a fundamental lack of understanding of the very nature of harm, sentience, pain, etc.Not necessarily. I do not believe I can harm a human who is brain dead (no consciousness) and merely surviving on life-support.
People. Kill people. I suspect you knew I meant that and are just nitpicking instead to avoid having to directly address the issue.Plants are alive too - is it an intrinsic evil to intentionally kill plants? The mere fact of being alive doesn’t amount to much, IMO.
Persons AND THEIR PROGENY, as I already said. Did you not even read half my post?The Constitution explicitly refers to “persons,” which the unborn are not.
And on that she would be dead wrong.It’s not clear and dry at all. Even Justice Scalia doesn’t think the unborn are persons within the meaning of the Constitution!
Feelings and sensations are necessary for physical pain, but notice that the definition does not define sentience in terms of “self-consciousness” or “self-awareness.”Then perhaps you should try to consult a dictionary. You’re being ridiculous.
Feeling and sensation do not necessarily mean physical pain.
Not so - I have not defined harmed that way. I included the capacity to suffer as well. Again, I return to my rock example: can I harm a rock by kicking it? If not, why not? Answer: No capacity for pain and suffering.You have consistently been defining harm as mere physical pain, as everyone here can see. If you’re just going to up and change the definition when it suits you, it’s no wonder you don’t grasp the issue.
Name threeTo say that my understanding is incorrect is to say that numerous philosophers who understand the term the same way are incorrect.
But it’s far from clear that the unborn are people, even if they’re human. That’s the complicated philosophical issue, which you find so clear-cut and dry.People. Kill people. I suspect you knew I meant that and are just nitpicking instead to avoid having to directly address the issue.
Where does the Constitution say that? Can you quote the specific provision?Persons AND THEIR PROGENY, as I already said. Did you not even read half my post?
Scalia is a ‘he,’ and he is perhaps the most conservative Justice on the Supreme Court. I find it hard that you could dismiss his professional legal opinion so quickly.And on that she would be dead wrong.
where are the links?Jeremy Bentham
Peter Singer
Gary Francione
Do you have a link to a quote of Justice Scalia claiming to be pro-abortion?Even Justice Scalia doesn’t think the unborn are persons within the meaning of the Constitution!
One of those men is not a philosopher and another one, if he’s the one I’m thinking of, just presented an argument that since abortion is allowed, so should killing a child outside the womb. Not the kind of philosopher I want to, or anyone should, be listening to.Jeremy Bentham
Peter Singer
Gary Francione
Considering the general legal definition of a person is nothing more than a “living human”, no, it’s still cut and dry.But it’s far from clear that the unborn are people, even if they’re human. That’s the complicated philosophical issue, which you find so clear-cut and dry.
Right at the beginning in the preamble, if memory serves.Where does the Constitution say that? Can you quote the specific provision?
Did you really think I would just blindly agree simply because he is the most conservative Justice (which isn’t saying much)? I am not a mindless sheeple.Scalia is a ‘he,’ and he is perhaps the most conservative Justice on the Supreme Court. I find it hard that you could dismiss his professional legal opinion so quickly.
Do you honestly doubt these people do?Agonizing pain? Can you post a specific video? Moreover, even if fetuses develop the capacity to suffer at some point, it’s clear that in the very early stages they don’t have that capacity - so there is no harm at all in killing them.
webster.edu/~corbetre/philosophy/animals/singer-text.htmlwhere are the links?
But does Singer claim that the Ability to be harmed is the determining factor in sentience? That is Spencelo’s claim.One of those men is not a philosopher and another one, if he’s the one I’m thinking of, just presented an argument that since abortion is allowed, so should killing a child outside the womb. Not the kind of philosopher I want to, or anyone should, be listening to.
“We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”Right at the beginning in the preamble, if memory serves.