Abortion

Well the mirror test is one way to test how self aware something is.

Dogs definitely fail it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_test

Neither of them are "Well, that was cool, let's move onto something else" type study's. I'm sure there's documentation of multiple case studies for both points, in which case would cause those points I made to hold much more water than you're giving them credit for.

No matter how elaborate the studies are, they aren't investigating the animal's own sense of species, just functionality in familiar unfamiliar groups.

Well the mirror test is one way to test how self aware something is.

Dogs definitely fail it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_test

V

Recognizing a foreign image as oneself, is not evidence for or against recognizing oneself as a certain species.

Anyways, any takers on abortion?

Quote from: Hara Taiki on August 05, 2009, 10:45:11 PM

Neither of them are "Well, that was cool, let's move onto something else" type study's. I'm sure there's documentation of multiple case studies for both points, in which case would cause those points I made to hold much more water than you're giving them credit for.

No matter how elaborate the studies are, they aren't investigating the animal's own sense of species, just functionality in familiar unfamiliar groups.

It's fairly obvious that being self-aware would also give them a sense of species. We're self-aware, do we class ourselves among goldfish? Certainly not. Can the same goldfish tell itself apart from any other similar size species? Probably not.

Anyway, back on topic; Still looking for someone to take up a non-emotional argument as to having abortion abolished.

It's fairly obvious that being self-aware would also give them a sense of species. We're self-aware, do we class ourselves among goldfish? Certainly not.

A dog is self aware, but weren't you claiming that it doesn't know its own species?

I'd really like someone to make an argument on why abortion should be banned without making an apparent appeal to emotion, based solely on logic. Anyone up to that instead of the usual circle jerk?

The thing is, what you consider an 'emotional appeal' is a basic component of some people's morality. Lots of people believe in 'morality', and I know a lot of intelligent people who understand the philosophical arguments to the contrary but still feel certain things are 'right' or 'wrong'.

A lot of the time, logic doesn't come into it. Many of us recognise that 'morality' is arbitrary and not based on any inherent truth, yet in day to day life I'm willing to bet most people here have a 'sense' of right and wrong, and won't do certain things no matter how much justification they think they have. I'm willing to bet that even the most ardent female supporters of abortion would feel very upset having had one, though they would fully believe they were right to do so.

Illogical as it may seem, people have an innate sense that a foetus is 'human life' It's part of our makeup, and I don't feel that's something you can so easily dismiss. I say this as someone who supports the legalisation of abortion.

Anyways, any takers on abortion?

Yes I'll take one abortion please.

I'm willing to bet most people here have a 'sense' of right and wrong, and won't do certain things no matter how much justification they think they have.

You call it a sense of right and wrong, I call it upholding self-interest.

Quote from: Hara Taiki on August 05, 2009, 10:32:07 PM

I'd really like someone to make an argument on why abortion should be banned without making an apparent appeal to emotion, based solely on logic. Anyone up to that instead of the usual circle jerk?

The thing is, what you consider an 'emotional appeal' is a basic component of some people's morality. Lots of people believe in 'morality', and I know a lot of intelligent people who understand the philosophical arguments to the contrary but still feel certain things are 'right' or 'wrong'.

A lot of the time, logic doesn't come into it. Many of us recognise that 'morality' is arbitrary and not based on any inherent truth, yet in day to day life I'm willing to bet most people here have a 'sense' of right and wrong, and won't do certain things no matter how much justification they think they have. I'm willing to bet that even the most ardent female supporters of abortion would feel very upset having had one, though they would fully believe they were right to do so.

Illogical as it may seem, people have an innate sense that a foetus is 'human life' It's part of our makeup, and I don't feel that's something you can so easily dismiss. I say this as someone who supports the legalisation of abortion.

I'm gonna go with what divito said and add this; Morality is subjective and relative. Only logic remains constant.

Sure, but society simply would not work if laws were only based upon logic, there would be no laws at all.

I'm gonna go with what divito said and add this; Morality is subjective and relative. Only logic remains constant.

I completely agree, but it's clear that humans are inherently attached to systems of morality and instinctively believe in 'right' and 'wrong'.

I've never been much of a history buff, but didn't people have a much different view of things long ago?  Abortion wasn't an issue but didn't people leave babies to die of exposure (and starvation) if they were born deformed?  I'm sure they didn't view themselves as immoral, they probably thought they were being extremely practical.  This is how I view abortion, it's practical. 

On the opposite end of this, there's Terry Pratchett campaigning for the right to die before Alzheimer's takes his mind completely. Is it immoral to want to die on your own terms?

Then again, they probably believed it was morally correct to end such lives. They were still working within their own moral framework.

Legally, I guess, you would have to define when the foetus actually becomes a human being.  Otherwise, wouldn't it be murder?

I don't know, and I can't really give a valid argument without appealing to morals.  I guess all I can say is that in my opinion, if you are going to have an abortion, you should do so before the foetus becomes sentient.  At that point, I would guess that it would be like killing another human being (the foetus would know that it was dying, etc).  However, I don't know for sure.

On another note:

Animals that have passed the mirror test are all of the great apes (bonobos, chimpanzees, orangutans, gorillas, and humans), bottlenose dolphins, Orcas, elephants, and European Magpies.

Stupid birds.  They're so damn SMART.

Quote from: Hara Taiki on August 05, 2009, 10:45:11 PM

Neither of them are "Well, that was cool, let's move onto something else" type study's. I'm sure there's documentation of multiple case studies for both points, in which case would cause those points I made to hold much more water than you're giving them credit for.

No matter how elaborate the studies are, they aren't investigating the animal's own sense of species, just functionality in familiar unfamiliar groups.

Quote from: Raist on August 05, 2009, 10:51:34 PM

Well the mirror test is one way to test how self aware something is.

Dogs definitely fail it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_test

V

Quote from: Soze on August 05, 2009, 10:39:53 PM

Recognizing a foreign image as oneself, is not evidence for or against recognizing oneself as a certain species.

Anyways, any takers on abortion?

I will give further explanation, a sheep dog raised on its own will not guard a sheep, it does not care about them and treats them as a separate species. A sheep dog raised with sheep, will guard any flock of sheep it is placed within, meaning it is treating them as one of its own despite the fact that it does not know these particular sheep.

Recognizing an image as yourself does show self awareness, recognizing that something is making the same movements as yourself can only be accomplished by realizing how you are moving. Dogs are not aware of their own movements, hence behavior such as chasing their own tail. I've watched my cat attack it's own tail only stopping when it hurt, to run away, then attacking its tail again.

Quote from: divito the truthist on August 05, 2009, 11:08:38 AM

Quote from: Trekky0623 on August 05, 2009, 09:53:39 AM

Exactly.  It doesn't matter when the thing is living, or even human; the real thing that matters is when the thing becomes sentient?when it can feel pain and is self-aware.

Appeal to emotion. -_-

Maybe.  However, the point remains that if a being is sentient, it should have the right to life.  That is the primary difference between human beings and animals.

Uh... human beings are animals, and just as sentient.

I will give further explanation, a sheep dog raised on its own will not guard a sheep, it does not care about them and treats them as a separate species. A sheep dog raised with sheep, will guard any flock of sheep it is placed within, meaning it is treating them as one of its own despite the fact that it does not know these particular sheep.

A llama, raised among other llamas will guard sheep even though it may never have been kept with sheep before. A protective trait in an animal does not necessarily imply self awareness.

What about that snake in the first Harry Potter movie? It was born in captivity, and yet still knew where it belonged and wanted to live in the wild. That is proof that at least snakes are self aware.

What about that snake in the first Harry Potter movie? It was born in captivity, and yet still knew where it belonged and wanted to live in the wild. That is proof that at least snakes are self aware.

Unicorns are real and rainbows really have pots of gold at the ends of them too, right?

As far as I know.

What about that snake in the first Harry Potter movie? It was born in captivity, and yet still knew where it belonged and wanted to live in the wild. That is proof that at least snakes are self aware.

That was obviously a magical snake.

The thread was split and my reply got lost:

Quote from: Raist on August 06, 2009, 03:07:07 PM

I will give further explanation, a sheep dog raised on its own will not guard a sheep, it does not care about them and treats them as a separate species. A sheep dog raised with sheep, will guard any flock of sheep it is placed within, meaning it is treating them as one of its own despite the fact that it does not know these particular sheep.

You are talking about learned behavior again. It doesn't require intimate knowledge of one's own species to be raised into different behavior.

Quote

Recognizing an image as yourself does show self awareness, recognizing that something is making the same movements as yourself can only be accomplished by realizing how you are moving.

Even if it implies a sense of species to recognize another image as oneself, you cannot declare that when something doesn't recognize its own image that it isn't aware of its species.

That's basically using (A, therefore B) as justification to say (not A, therefore not B).
It's a converse logical fallacy.

Quote

Dogs are not aware of their own movements, hence behavior such as chasing their own tail. I've watched my cat attack it's own tail only stopping when it hurt, to run away, then attacking its tail again.

I have never seen any of my cats hurt themselves, and for that matter same goes for my dog. At most, I would think that they are playing with themselves.

I'm going to stop arguing because there is no way I could convince you. Your answers are more vague refutations of you not having seen it.

Knowledge of oneself is required to recognize yourself in a mirror. Animals, not being self aware, do not even realizing how they are moving and therefore can't relate this to the animal they see in the mirror. I don't know what you'd define as self aware, but yeah, i'm done.

Knowledge of oneself is required to recognize yourself in a mirror.

I agree.

Animals, not being self aware, do not even realizing how they are moving and therefore can't relate this to the animal they see in the mirror. I don't know what you'd define as self aware, but yeah, i'm done.

That's begging the question. Your ultimate goal is to prove animals are not self aware, and yet you start your sentence with your overall conclusion as if it was a premise. Recognizing an object foreign to your own working body is impeded by obstacles like the institutional problem that your body should not be "over there". To assume it is a lack of awareness of one's own movements, or lack of awareness of one's own species is to unfairly dismiss every other conceivable reason for failing. A mirror is an unnatural concept that may be hard for more primitive creatures to comprehend. For all we know, appearing to be in two places at once may seem absurd to the dog, so it dismisses the possibility all too soon.

Also, not all animals fail the mirror test as the more intelligent can even learn to use it as a tool. As it was mentioned before, humans are also animals.

I am explaining their behavior, you are allowed to start with a premise when you are explaining something, I am not having an experiment so I do not need to start off neutrally.

As for your 'some animals pass the mirror test" Yes, I know this, and I also know we are animals. This is completely unrelated. I know all about certain crows using tools and passing the mirror test, as well as certain great apes other than humans passing the mirror test. If the mirror test only worked with humans I would assume it is a flawed or in someway biased test. Especially considering apes have learned sign language and even taken it to the point of teaching other apes sign language and inventing their own signs by combining previous words to describe new items.


In short, you're preaching to the choir, but dogs are not self aware.

No part of that explained how you know dogs are not aware of themselves.

The mirror test can be influenced by a number of variables that would cause failure, so failing the test only tells us that one or more of the conditions wasn't met, not which one(s) it was.

Imo; I don't support abortion, doesnt matter how old it is, abortion is murder. There is no way around that.

Imo; I don't support abortion, doesnt matter how old it is, abortion is murder. There is no way around that.

There are plenty of ways.

How late is too late again?




ASUNCION, Paraguay ?  A baby boy born 16 weeks prematurely was declared dead by doctors at a hospital in Paraguay only to wake up in time for his funeral wake hours later.

Dr. Ernesto Weber, head of pediatric care at the state-run hospital in the capital of Asuncion, said the baby weighed just 1,1 pounds when he was born.

"Initially, the baby didn't move, he practically didn't have any respiratory reflexes, nor did we hear a heartbeat and, as a result, we declared a premature fetus of 24 weeks dead," Weber told Reuters Television.

The family was given a death certificate and a cardboard box with the baby's name scribbled on the outside which served as a makeshift coffin.

But when the family took him from the hospital to prepare him for his funeral, the unbelievable happened.

"I opened the box and took the baby out and he cried. I got scared and I said "the baby's crying" ... and then he started moving his arms, his legs and I got scared, we got very scared," said one member of the family, Liliana Alvarenga.

Hours after the baby's death had been declared he was found to be alive. The hospital has begun an investigation and the baby is now in a stable condition in an incubator.

I'm sorry, how does that contradict anything?