/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.5616487]

Is the pro-child murder stance scientifically justified?

[Anonymous No.5616489]

This isn't science or math, this is philosophy. If you think this thread is science related, you don't have a clue about what science actually is. Now kindly leave.

[Anonymous No.5616490]

>>5616487

I smell a troll.

[Anonymous No.5616495]

>>5616493
So then what's the basis for it being illegal to murder a fetus once it passes through a vagina aside from "my feelings"?

[Anonymous No.5616493]

There is no moment of fertilization, the process lasts a pretty long time. The zygote can split into several pieces creating monozygotic twins for a long time after that. Most of the literature considers twins to be separate people.

[Anonymous No.5616500]

>>5616495

the fact that abortion was never defined as murder before Roe V Wade.

now quit wasting time on 4chan and go save some crack babies

[Anonymous No.5616504]

>>5616495
a hopital propably spent tons of money to keep said fetus alive

[Anonymous No.5616505]

>>5616500
>the fact that abortion was never defined as murder before Roe V Wade.

And? That's not an argument. Before slavery was illegal there were slaves.

[Anonymous No.5616510]

Fun fact:
Animals we kill everyday can sense pain whereas an < 20 weeks foetus cannot.

Also:
>A person is a being, such as a human, that has certain capacities or attributes constituting personhood, which in turn is defined differently by different authors in different disciplines, and by different cultures in different times and places.
The concept of "person-hood" is unscientific because it relies on several cultures, disciplines and opinions.
OP's picture is very hypocritical in that way.
Not science:
>>>/pol/
>>>/b/

[Anonymous No.5616507]

>>5616504
So how much money is spent on the child determines whether of not it gets to live? That doesn't sound very "progressive" of you.

[Anonymous No.5616511]

>>5616510
>Animals we kill everyday can sense pain whereas an < 20 weeks unborn child cannot.

Murdering humans is also illegal, yet killing animals is not. There goes your entire argument.

[Anonymous No.5616512]

>>5616505

You didn't actually pass a logic course did you.

Slavery was legal.
Abortion was illegal.
Murder was illegal
the distinction between abortion and infanticide already existed

you just want to engage in semantic sophistry to feel better about your psychosexual disorder

[Anonymous No.5616513]

>>5616512
>someone passed a law at one point that didn't declare abortion as murder
>therefore abortion can never be considered murder EVER because laws are eternal

[Anonymous No.5616519]

>>5616511
I see no problem killing human beings when they:
-can't feel pain
-can't make rational thoughts
-aren't self-sustainable
-are a burden for their parents
-are less conscious than animals
-have no personality and attributes

And you're not allowed to decide what women can do or not with their own body.

[Anonymous No.5616516]

A three-day-old human embryo is a collection of 150 cells called a blastocyst. There are, for the sake of comparison, more than 100,000 cells in the brain of a fly. The human embryos that are destroyed in stem-cell research do not have brains, or even neurons. Consequently, there is no reason to believe they can suffer their destruction in any way at all. It is worth remembering, in this context, that when a person's brain has died, we currently deem it acceptable to harvest his organs (provided he has donated them for this purpose) and bury him in the ground.

If it is acceptable to treat a person whose brain has died as something less than a human being, it should be acceptable to treat a blastocyst as such. If you are concerned about suffering in this universe, killing a fly should present you with a greater moral difficulties than killing a human blastocyst.

Perhaps you think that the crucial difference between a fly and a human blastocyst is to be found in the latter's potential to become a fully developed human being. But almost every cell in your body is a potential human being, given our recent advances in genetic engineering. Every time you scratch your nose, you have committed a holocaust of potential human beings. This is a fact. The argument from a cell's potential gets you absolutely nowhere.

But let us assume, for the moment, that every three-day-old human embryo has a soul worthy of our moral concern. Embryos at this stage occasionally split, becoming separate people (identical twins). Is this a case on one soul splitting into two? Two embryos sometimes fuse into a single individual, called a chimera. You or someone you know may have developed in this way. No doubt theologians are struggling even now to determine what becomes of the extra human soul in such a case.

[Anonymous No.5616521]

>>5616516
>suffering determines whether or not something is deserving of life

2/10, that's the best I can do.

[Anonymous No.5616523]

>>5616519
>And you're not allowed to decide what women can do or not with their own body.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwejQBIyjow

[Anonymous No.5616525]

>>5616513

Ask a question about legal basis.
Get a factual answer.

spent out more contrafactual bullshit


how about we have a referendum about Personhood starting at conception.....
oh wait.. we did that...

In FUCKING MISSISSIPPI... how'd that go?

[Anonymous No.5616527]

>>5616525
You brought up the legal basis and I utterly destroyed you using logic. You have nothing to stand on now so you're rambling like a child.

[Anonymous No.5616528]

>>5616521
Out of arguments?

[Anonymous No.5616531]

>>5616528
Your argument is "suffering determines whether or not something has a right to live". Prove your statement. Go ahead, I'll wait.

[Anonymous No.5616534]

>>5616527
>So then what's the basis for it being illegal to murder a fetus once it passes through a vagina aside from "my feelings"?


WHO brought it up?

You couldn't argue your way out of paper bag.

[Anonymous No.5616535]

>>5616531
The problem is that the same goes for you.
You have no reason to protect a bag of cells that cannot express any feelings and rational thoughts.

[Anonymous No.5616540]

>>5616537
>So, in other words, you can't do it?
Neither do you.

1-1

[Anonymous No.5616536]

>>5616487

>>when is euthanization ever not justified

[Anonymous No.5616537]

>>5616534
>WHO brought it up?
>the fact that abortion was never defined as murder before Roe V Wade.

You. I'll give you one more chance to prove yourself, because at this I'm a little embarrassed for you.

>>5616535
>Prove your statement. Go ahead, I'll wait.

So, in other words, you can't do it?

1-0

[Anonymous No.5616538]

>>5616523
Your point?

[Anonymous No.5616539]

>>5616521
>suffering
experience,
an embryo experiences nothing, there is nothing that it is like to be an embryo

nice strawman though 3/10

it seems you think you have some other source of value that has nothing to do with the actual or potential experience of conscious beings. Whatever this is, it must be something that cannot affect the experience of anything in the universe, in this life or in any other.

please tell me more about this realm that is, by definition, something that cannot be cared about

[Anonymous No.5616543]

>>5616538
That you, and most like you, don't actually care about the freedom to choose, you're only pro-choice when people make decisions you like.

>>5616539
>please tell me more about this realm that is, by definition, something that cannot be cared about

Argument disqualified by r3ddit memespouting.


>>5616540
>makes a statement
>can't logically defend it

2-0

[Anonymous No.5616545]

>>5616543
>Can't prove the opposite

0-2

[Anonymous No.5616547]

>>5616545
>p-prove me wrong!!!

Fallacy. Still waiting for a single logical argument to defend the pro-child murder stance.

[Anonymous No.5616549]

>>5616543
>That you, and most like you, don't actually care about the freedom to choose, you're only pro-choice when people make decisions you like.
>don't actually care about the freedom to choose
>you're only pro-choice when people make decisions you like.
Prove it.
Oh, you can't.

[Anonymous No.5616552]

Pro-lifers are almost always neither.
The hypocrisy is deliciously hilarious.

Unfortunately, said people are almost never
intelligent enough to understand the hypocrisy or
how funny it is.

[Anonymous No.5616550]

>>5616537

So then what's the basis for it being illegal to murder a fetus once it passes through a vagina aside from "my feelings

the fact that abortion was never defined as murder before Roe V Wade.
And? That's not an argument. Before slavery was illegal there were slaves.


Slavery was legal.
Abortion was illegal.
Murder was illegal
the distinction between abortion and infanticide already existed

.....

Keep trolling.

[Anonymous No.5616554]

>>5616547

"zygotes are persons"

Burden of proof is on you..

[Anonymous No.5616558]

>>5616549
>Prove it.

Do you support a person's right to murder someone else? I'm guessing you'll say no, because "w-well other people have rights!!!".

Unfortunately for you, every argument against murder also applies to unborn children unless you can 100% prove that they are not alive. Why is a child not human before it is born, but once is passes through a hole between some sluts legs, it's magically human?

If you respond without 100% proof you automatically lose the argument.

[Anonymous No.5616555]

>>5616543
>cant point to a source of value that has nothing to do with experience
>argument disqualified
no u

[Anonymous No.5616556]

>This is the black and white moment when a person is created.
Give us your definition of a "person", retard.

[Anonymous No.5616561]

>>5616552
>people who disagree with me are all uneducated LOL. wow im so right and others are so dumb xD

>>>/r3ddit/

[Anonymous No.5616566]

I like how OP chooses the Socratic method, in that he refuses to put in his own belief, in fear of it being dismantled, but will readily attack someone who's foolish enough to state their belief.

[Anonymous No.5616564]

>>5616558

No. Burden of proof is on you.

[Anonymous No.5616572]

>>5616564
You asked for proof that you're not pro-choice. I destroyed you by pointing out that you most likely don't support a person's right to murder, which also applies to an unborn child.

I give you permission to leave the thread, seeing as how you've lose this debate.

>>5616566
Because it's irrelevant whether I'm pro-life or pro-choice, I'm just poking holes in your fallacious argument. Are you upset because you actually have to defend your dogma instead of resorting to ad hominem and strawman?

[Anonymous No.5616569]

>>5616487

What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

You are dismissed.

[Anonymous No.5616570]

>>5616561
See? That's exactly my point. No attempt at refutation, no arguments,, just more bs.

[Anonymous No.5616573]

>>5616558
>Do you support a person's right to murder someone else?
No because it affects another person that isn't me.

>every argument against murder also applies to unborn children unless you can 100% prove that they are not alive.
Explain then why it's "bad" to terminate the life of something that can't think, can't express feelings, does not have a personality, does not have any relations with anyone, is a burden to it's parents and cannot feel pain.

>unless you can 100% prove that they are not alive.
Explain why just because it's alive it should be protected at all cost.

You're either a shitty troll, or an incredibly retarded human being.

[Anonymous No.5616575]

>>5616573
>No because it affects another person that isn't me.
>No because it affects another person that isn't me.

Prove, objectively, that a humans ability to suffer/its personality/how many friends he/she has determines their right to life. You're just throwing out talking points without even thinking about them, junior.

[Anonymous No.5616578]

>>5616572

Wrong. You asserted without evidence that zygotes are persons.

all the rest is Trolling bullshit.

[Anonymous No.5616583]

>>5616578
>You asserted without evidence that zygotes are persons.

Scientifically, when an egg is fertilized is the most black and white time when a human life is created. Go ahead and point out another point that indicates life, that isn't "muh feelings".

[Anonymous No.5616593]

>>5616575
Because I think that someone who can feel, can express suffering, can think rationally, and has friends and a family has the right to live.
I can prove it because it's subjective, but if you think that it doesn't make any sense, then you'll have to tell me why.
At least, I think my view makes more sense than yours, which only consist of pathetic feelings without any rational thinking behind it:
(HUR BECAUSE IT'S ALIVE IT SHOULD BE PROTECTED AT ALL COST / THERE'S NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A 20 WEEKS OLD FOETUS AND A BORN BABY OR ADULTS)

[Anonymous No.5616596]

>>5616593
So your argument is "because my feelings say so"?

[Anonymous No.5616600]

>>5616593
>(HUR BECAUSE IT'S ALIVE IT SHOULD BE PROTECTED AT ALL COST / THERE'S NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A 20 WEEKS OLD FOETUS AND A BORN BABY OR ADULTS)

You just admitted that there isn't an objective difference.

[Anonymous No.5616601]

>>5616583

Argument by assertion.

Fail.

[Anonymous No.5616604]

How about this:

Every child that grows up to be a contribuing factor to society contributes to the global gross domestic product, and as such facilitates and accelerates the development of mankind.

If such a contributing factor also develops offspring which continute to produce and reproduce, we can assume that Human growth follows exponential growth

In exponential growth, if the growth rate cannot feasibly be altered and is not dependent on the baseline, the baseline is the most crucial factor of growth.

Abortion reduces the present baseline of a potential contributing factor, and as such irreparably inhibits and delays Human growth.
On the other hand, if it can be proven that the offspring of a certain subgroup of humans (eg. uneducated inbred trailer trash that keeps its offspring as personal sex slaves I donno, I'm not a sociologist) exhibits parasitic behavior in terms of fiscal dependence on the Human nations and as such reduce the Human gdp, their abortion seems warranted

[gdfgdfgd No.5616602]

youtube.com/tacohour

[Anonymous No.5616605]

>>5616601
>Fail

Is this 2006? Why is /sci/ full of so many le r3dditors? Are you going to start quoting Darkins next?

[Anonymous No.5616612]

Does that mean one egged twins are really the same person?

[Anonymous No.5616610]

>>5616583
>Scientifically, when an egg is fertilized is the most black and white time when a human life is created.
Who said so? Where is it written? Link to peer reviews?

>Go ahead and point out another point that indicates life
Sperm is alive too. You should consider to stop masturbating because then you're killing millions of cells.
Also women should stop having their menstruations since it can be considered ovum murder.

[Anonymous No.5616618]

>>5616583

the point where a foetus achieves consciousness for the first time. you can't tell me that a fertilized egg is conscious.

I'm talking conscious in terms of "not unconscious".

[Anonymous No.5616619]

>>5616604
Well blacks are only 10% of the population yet commit 50% of the murder, so we should probably keep their population under control. Most people don't even know that planned parenthood was created as a racial eugenics center.

[Anonymous No.5616614]

>>5616583
>human life begins when an egg is fertilised

show me a peer reviewed paper predicting which fertilised eggs will become twins and chimeras

[Anonymous No.5616615]

The last few pro-lifer posts have been so stupid that they must be trolling, So I am now announcing
------------------------------------------------------------TROLLING LINE------------------------------------------------------------

[Anonymous No.5616616]

>>5616605

You asked .. can SCIENCE disprove an assertion I pulled out of my ass..

Still Fail.

[Anonymous No.5616620]

>>5616596
You're not responding to what I asked you:
Prove me why the statement "someone who can feel, can express suffering, can think rationally, and has friends and a family has the right to live." isn't good to you.
Until you respond to that, you only are a shit troll.

[Anonymous No.5616626]

>>5616615

even mine?

lol if you don't understand basic economics which is essentially just common sense I feel bad for you son.

[Anonymous No.5616628]

>>5616610
>Sperm is alive too. You should consider to stop masturbating because then you're killing millions of cells.

Cute strawman, I bet they love that one over on le r3ddit. But too bad it's irrelevant outside of misinformed circlejerks about how right you are. The fact is, you cannot provide a single line as to when a child becomes deserving of life.

>>5616618
Define consciousness.

[Anonymous No.5616623]

>>5616600
No. I said that there are many differences.

[Anonymous No.5616629]

>>5616623
That are all arbitrary.

4-0

[Anonymous No.5616633]

>>5616572
>implying I'm arguing in this thread

[Anonymous No.5616631]

>>5616628

Consciousness is the working image on the Global Workspace.

which presupposes a certain level of neurological development...

by god, we are done here!

[Anonymous No.5616634]

>>5616487

not a person until it has Consciousness.

we are done.

[Anonymous No.5616640]

>>5616633

you are Anonymous

Anonymous is arguing in this thread

therefore...

[Anonymous No.5616639]

>>5616619

but you need to realize that they kill mostly each other. as long as they are contributing factors and don't display parasitism (do they produce more than they consume, as a group?) they shouldn't be prevented from doing whatever they're doing.

It would be best if nigger prisons were staffed and maintained by niggers.

[Anonymous No.5616650]

>>5616629
Foetus VS Born humans
Can't feel pain / feel pain
Have no status in the society / Have a status in the society
Have no friend / Have friends
Can't think rationally / Can think rationally

The difference is hardly arbitrary.

[Anonymous No.5616649]

>>5616639
>blacks
>not displaying parasitism
>producing more than they consume

[Anonymous No.5616653]

>>5616650
>Can't feel pain / feel pain

How is this criteria not arbitrary?

>Have no status in the society / Have a status in the society

How is this criteria not arbitrary?

>Have no friend / Have friends

How is this criteria not arbitrary?

>Can't think rationally / Can think rationally

How is this criteria not arbitrary?

[Anonymous No.5616654]

>>5616649

>what are cotton farms lol

they have their uses. they just need direction. also, you can't really say whether they are parasitic or not without statistical evidence.. while it seems that way, it is not necessarily so.

[Anonymous No.5616659]

>>5616628
>Cute strawman, I bet they love that one over on le r3ddit.
Explain why it's a strawman.

>The fact is, you cannot provide a single line as to when a child becomes deserving of life.
You cannot too.
Considering that a fertilized ovum has the same right to live than a born baby makes few sense and cannot be defended with rational arguments.
Protecting or getting rid of unwanted foetus does nothing to the humans in the society.

[Anonymous No.5616663]

>>5616653

Why are you still arguing?
we have already solved the non-personhood of zygotes and have moved on to
Stormfront fuckery.

[Anonymous No.5616668]

>>5616653
>How is this criteria not arbitrary?
How is your criteria not arbitrary?
At least mine make sense, because getting rid of fetuses does not harm the society and can save the life of a woman and a man.

[Anonymous No.5616666]

>>5616659
Prove that there's a non-arbitrary distinction between children in the womb and children out of the womb.

>>5616663
>gets logically embarrassed
>g-go back to X(place I don't like)

[Anonymous No.5616672]

>>5616668
>can't defend his own argument
>tries to turn it around

You realize this is akin to admitting you're wrong, correct?

[Anonymous No.5616677]

>>5616653
>consciousness is arbitrary
>being able to have experiences is arbitrary
>language is arbitrary
>the very words you use to reject something as arbitrary are themselves arbitrary
you basically just said 2+2 is 5

[Anonymous No.5616679]

>>5616666

Magic soul bullshit belongs in /x/

you barely know the meaning of the word logic.

[Anonymous No.5616675]

>>5616672
You haven't explained why your criteria is better than mine.
You realize this is akin to admitting you're wrong, correct?

[Anonymous No.5616680]

>>5616677
You've failed to explain why any of these things objectively determine a child's right to life.

>>5616679
>still no argument

5-0

If anything, you're the one using fallacious "muh human soul" arguments, by actually believing that once a baby passes out of a hole it's magically alive, but before that is can be aborted because it's not human.

[Anonymous No.5616686]

>>5616680


If anything, you're the one using fallacious "muh human soul" arguments, by actually believing that once a baby passes out of a hole it's magically alive, but before that is can be aborted because it's not human.


No.... You might want to realize you are talking to more than one person, because it makes you look both crazy and stupid.

Zygotes are not persons because they do not possess consciousness.

you go to /x/

[Anonymous No.5616690]

>>5616686
>Zygotes are not persons because they do not possess consciousness.


Prove beyond a doubt that consciousness determines a human's right to life. Oh wait, junior, you can't.

[Anonymous No.5616689]

>>5616679

hurpa durpa look up the medical definition of conscious once in a while

nice troll, go to bed now. it's late in bangladesh.

[Anonymous No.5616693]

>>5616686

and you go to /b/

[Anonymous No.5616697]

>>5616690

What is 'brain death'?

[Anonymous No.5616695]

>>5616689

conscious
brain
zygote

what is wrong with this picture?

[Anonymous No.5616699]

>>5616690

P.S. you just told me you are very young...

nice going.

[Anonymous No.5616703]

Prove beyond a doubt that proving proves proofs.

[Anonymous No.5616704]

"the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally. "

Here is the definition of life. It is unarguable.

Whether or not a fetus is alive is in fact a scientific argument, not a philosophical one.

[Anonymous No.5616705]

>>5616699
>>5616697
>Prove beyond a doubt that consciousness determines a human's right to life.

Still waiting.

[Anonymous No.5616707]

>>5616690

>prove
>science

we corroborate theories, there is no proof in biology. do you even science, junior?

>>>/b/

[Anonymous No.5616708]

>>5616487
People are murdering children now? Or are you just flubbing the language in order to make abortion sound like a bad thing?

[Anonymous No.5616709]

>>5616695
>conscious

Take your untestable dualism bullshit back to >>>/x/

[Anonymous No.5616711]

>>5616705

Waiting for me to prove nonexistent entities?

You must be bored.

[Anonymous No.5616712]

>>5616708
Prove that there is a non-arbitrary distinction between a child and a unborn child, that isn't "because it passed through a vagina".

[Anonymous No.5616720]

>>5616709

Consciousness is the working image on the Global Workspace.

No need to apologize. It was a honest mistake.

[Anonymous No.5616715]

>>5616711
>still can't prove it

Are you giving up?

[Anonymous No.5616717]

>>5616708
Abortion is a bad thing, whether or not it's right. At least a sad thing.

[Anonymous No.5616722]

>>5616717
I'm not saddened by abortion at all.

[Anonymous No.5616721]

>>5616543
>doesn't actually care about people once they're born
>wants to be able to tell women what to do with their bodies regardless

Oh okay sparky

[Anonymous No.5616726]

>>5616558
>but once is passes through a hole between some sluts legs

This isn't about defending an unborn "life" to you, this is about controlling women.

Prove me wrong.

[Anonymous No.5616723]

>>5616547
Again, there are people murdering children now?

Or are you just flubbing the language in order to control what women do with their bodies?

[Anonymous No.5616725]

>>5616680
>thinks consciousness is arbitrary
>thinks being able to have experiences is arbitrary
>thinks language is arbitrary
>keeps saying "objectively" and "arbitrary" as if these words mean anything in his world view

you are bewitched by language, go read some wittgenstein

why should anybody listen to the jabberings of a solipsist like you?

[Anonymous No.5616730]

>>5616722
Do you have any reason to be? Have you aborted a baby yourself?

I didn't say that you were saddened by it, i said it was a sad thing.

[Anonymous No.5616731]

>>5616575
>he thinks a zygote isn't a part of a woman's body.

Oh you.jpeg

[Anonymous No.5616727]

>>5616723
>>5616721
>telling women what to do with their bodies

This r3ddit argument again?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwejQBIyjow

[Anonymous No.5616728]

Killing < 20 weeks fetuses according to the will of the mother:
+ Painless for both the mother and the fetus (since it cannot feel pain).
+ Does no harm to society.
+ Good for the woman who wanted to abort and her husband.
+ Respects the right of the mother to own her own body.
+ Prevents unwanted birth of a child after a rape.

Not killing < 20 weeks fetuses despite the will of the mother:
- Bad for the woman who wanted to abort and her husband.
- Doesn't respect the right of the mother to own her own body.
- Doesn't prevent unwanted birth of a child after a rape.
- The baby will probably have to live in a really bad environment and be unhappy as a result of either its mother not wanting it, or its mother not having enough money to take care of it.
- The dad might leave because he can't face the responsibility, ruining the life of the mother.

If you want the fetuses-killing to stop, then you probably want to make an agreement with the parents who wanna abort and adopt at birth their child.

[Anonymous No.5616732]

>>5616726
>this is about controlling women
>prove me wrong

Fallacy.

[Anonymous No.5616729]

>>5616715

No. U.

[Anonymous No.5616735]

>>5616717
It's like crying over the death of your sperm once you ejaculated.
I don't feel saddened at all.

[Anonymous No.5616738]

>>5616728
>If you want the fetuses-killing to stop, then you probably want to make an agreement with the parents who wanna abort and adopt at birth their child.

As well as take care of all the medical expenses related to the fetus that come prior to it being born, what with all those check-ups it's going to need.

[Anonymous No.5616739]

>>5616735
So if you kill a child right before it comes out of a vagina, it's alright. But once it's out, you should be saddened?

That's a position devoid of logic and critical thought.

[Anonymous No.5616742]

>>5616735
see
>>5616730


There are hormones that are released when a woman is pregnant, and she becomes fond and attached to her child. The same doesn't happen for eggs or sperm.

Actually, women can be sad when they lose all of their eggs.

[Anonymous No.5616743]

>>5616727
Your shitty youtube link again?

You're seriously trying to argue that a fetus is not a part of a woman's body? So they should be able to exist outside the womb, right? So you shouldn't be as buttmad about women getting abortions as you are.

[Anonymous No.5616745]

>>5616732

So you can't prove me wrong?

Nice to know.

[Anonymous No.5616748]

>>5616742
I think that sadness of loosing an unconscious bag of cells is largely overcome by the feeling of being free again and not having to take care of an unwanted baby for the next 20 years of your life.

[Anonymous No.5616750]

Life begins at conception, but it is still a part of the mother's body (and completely reliant upon her for nutrients and survival in general) thus making it a parasite until then.

Your fee-fees about infants be damned.

[Anonymous No.5616752]

>>5616745
You're embarrassing yourself. Why are pro-abortion advocates such children?

You resort to childish fallacies when destroyed in debate.

[Anonymous No.5616753]

>>5616739
I'm saddened by the killing of conscious beings that can feel pain.
There's a difference between an < 20 week fetus and a born baby.

[Anonymous No.5616759]

>>5616753
>There's a difference between an < 20 week fetus and a born baby.

Provide one that isn't arbitrary. Be sure to include 100% proof, or else you've officially ceded that argument.

[Anonymous No.5616760]

>>5616752
>You're embarrassing yourself. Why are pro-abortion advocates such children?
>You resort to childish fallacies when destroyed in debate.
Hey, retard, hey. Look around yourself.
You're the only one here resorting to fallacies.

[Anonymous No.5616765]

>>5616763
>infantile cartoon

[Anonymous No.5616762]

>>5616752

Why is it all you closeted fags that love Jesus so much pretend to be so concerned about somebody else's embryos

[Anonymous No.5616763]

>>5616760
I've refuted every argument in this thread. All of you have failed to provide a criteria for personhood that isn't arbitrary/"because my feelings say so".

[Anonymous No.5616767]

>>5616759

You have officially ceded the argument by making unjustifiable conditions.

[Anonymous No.5616768]

>>5616759
>Provide one that isn't arbitrary.
Easy. The < 20 week fetus is < 20 weeks old whereas the born baby is approximately 9 months old.

[Anonymous No.5616766]

>>5616762
>ad hominem

6-0

[Anonymous No.5616769]

>>5616766

improper use of citation of logical fallacy

fag

[Anonymous No.5616774]

>>5616768
Prove, undoubtedly, that age determines a child's right to live.

>>5616773
>trying to turn it around because you can't defend your own beliefs

[Anonymous No.5616773]

>>5616763
>All of you have failed to provide a criteria for personhood that isn't arbitrary/"because my feelings say so".
Enlighten us.
Give us the universally accepted definition of personhood.

[Anonymous No.5616778]

>>5616763

> Trolling trolls and pretending to be smug about it

shigg diggy

[Anonymous No.5616775]

>>5616766
Educate yourself.

[Anonymous No.5616779]

>>5616774
>Prove, undoubtedly, that age determines a child's right to live.
It's not what I wanna prove.

[Anonymous No.5616781]

>>5616774
>>trying to turn it around because you can't defend your own beliefs
Congratulation.
You just admitted that you can't define personhood.

[Anonymous No.5616783]

>>5616487

Okay, a fetus is a person. Is it justified to prevent the carrying woman from evicting them? Misogynist.

[Anonymous No.5616780]

>>5616779
>>5616778
>>5616775
>they still can't logically defend their position

[Anonymous No.5616786]

>>5616775

Pretending you actually have a college degree,

let alone an advance degree in Philosophy.

your parents must be so proud

[Anonymous No.5616788]

>>5616783
>misogynist

[Anonymous No.5616789]

You guys posting in a religatard troll thread. Only a religatard can have logic this terrible.

[Anonymous No.5616793]

>>5616789
>mfw I'm only replying to this shit troll because it makes me practice English

[Anonymous No.5616795]

>>5616552

Was just about to say that, but you did.

If you're pro-life, you better not eat meat, have no tumors removed or never killed an insect.

[Anonymous No.5616798]

>>5616795
And never ejaculate.

[Anonymous No.5616800]

>>5616748
Regardless of whether or not sadness can be overcome, it still existed at some point, and therefor is sadness.

[Anonymous No.5616797]

>>5616793

>mfw I actually argue with bots

[Anonymous No.5616805]

>>5616798
Sperm cells still die after three days.

[Anonymous No.5616810]

>>5616763
are you crazy or just fkn stupid? wtf

[Anonymous No.5616811]

>implying abortion or pro-life are the only options

You americlaps are fucking retarded. The only rational solution is to not allow prenatal abortion while simultaneously enforcing postnatal abortion. This way sluts are punished by having to suffer the pain of pregancy and birth, but we also make sure society isn't flooded with new retards.

[Anonymous No.5616814]

Guys, listen,

guys,

what if
what
if

The justification for abortion doesn't depend on personhood at all?

[Anonymous No.5616819]

>>5616814

[Anonymous No.5616820]

>>5616816
*invalid to take that into consideration

[Anonymous No.5616816]

>>5616763
I don't understand why something subjective automatically has to be wrong or unnecessary.

Just because we feel as humans are designed to, because we have personhood as a function of the human condition, somehow it's invalid to consider.

[Anonymous No.5616817]

Does it really matter, considering the population of the world?

[Anonymous No.5616824]

>>5616811
"You americlaps are fucking retarded."

If you aren't an American, than why would you assume everyone else here is?

[Anonymous No.5616827]

It's in principle the same why 'pulling the plug' on a brain-dead person isn't considered murder.

a fetus lacks person-hood so in the balance of things this constitutes a grey area concerning whether its termination can be considered murder. Everything isn't black-and-white.

[Anonymous No.5616830]

>>5616817
Population isn't so much of an influence that it's determinant of whether or not abortions are going to happen. It may be a factor to big thinkers, but only a small one.

[Anonymous No.5616829]

If your definition of human is "has human DNA", then "human life" begins at conception.
If your definition of human is "consciousness/awareness/feeling of pain", then "human life" begins at around 8-16 weeks after conception.

[Anonymous No.5616832]

>>5616829
>If your definition of human is "consciousness/awareness/

... then you're a dualist retard who belongs on >>>/x/

[Anonymous No.5616836]

>>5616829
>If your definition of human is "consciousness/awareness/feeling of pain", then "human life" begins at around 8-16 weeks after conception.
More like 20 weeks.

[Anonymous No.5616837]

>>5616827
>>5616829
see
>>5616704
What's true is black and white, how people handle the truth is in the grey.

[Anonymous No.5616835]

>>5616830
Oh, alright. It just feels like a non-issue.

[Anonymous No.5616848]

>>5616837
>What's true is black and white

Yes, but in context.
For example, if your ultimate goal is to reduce unnecessary suffering, then there may be only one approach that does this best; however, the dividing line may have to be something of a balance taking into account that the child will suffer, and so will the parents, if the child is unwanted yet still born. At the same time, if the parents are allowed full reign over whether the child lives or dies regardless of its development, then you are potentially robbing a conscious living thing of an opportunity for life and the pursuit of happiness.
These are both valid arguments, but one doesn't 'cancel' the other out. Rather, best approach is going to fall somewhere in between.

[Anonymous No.5616853]

>>5616848
>conscious

[Anonymous No.5616856]

>>5616829
It's sort of a continuum in developing ability to sense and process information.

[Anonymous No.5616860]

>>5616853
evidence of what?
we're talking logical abstractions here.

[Anonymous No.5616863]

>>5616860
There is no evidence for a soul/consciousness and it cannot be tested.

>logical abstraction
That doesn't mean what you think it means. A baseless /x/ claim is the opposite of logical.

[Anonymous No.5616868]

Relating to conscious, i like to think of it as a metaphor for something that we observe but can not (yet) fully explain.

[Anonymous No.5616872]

I am not all that current on the issue but I am going to assume that people are still debate over when precisely it is unethical to abort a child. If that is the case we can apply the principle behind research to state what stance we should take on abortion for the time being.

Our null is that life begins at conception and our alternative is that it begins at some other time point (it won't matter when precisely for reasons I will go into right now). Assuming that there is no evidence for use to definitely reject our null, we must not reject it and work with the assumption that it is right since a type I error is much worse than a type II error. This is a basic lesson taught in stats.

[Anonymous No.5616870]

>>5616868
>that we observe

What effects does it have? What do you observe?

[Anonymous No.5616883]

>>5616870
we can sense ourselves thinking

[Anonymous No.5616880]

>>5616870
The fact that it changes (even more so with drugs), can go away, helps me, and makes me do things that one might consider to have no real use.

[Anonymous No.5616885]

>>5616880
Forgot to mention that people can still function even when it's completely gone, meaning it is not just the way that we make decisions and react to our environment.

[Anonymous No.5616887]

>>5616880
>The fact that it changes
What changes?

>>5616883
That's a baseless claim. Please prove it by providing evidence.

[Anonymous No.5616888]

>>5616863
>there is no evidence of consciousness

that's akin to saying there is no evidence for sight or sound or smell.

we readily experience it, and there is very much evidence of consciousness within our brains.

[Anonymous No.5616893]

>>5616887
Our conscious

[Anonymous No.5616894]

>>5616885
You're saying it has no effects? Then it can be dismissed by Hitchens' razor.

[Anonymous No.5616902]

>>5616487

>morals
>science

Pick one.

[Anonymous No.5616906]

>>5616888
>that's akin to saying there is no evidence for sight or sound or smell.
Sound and smell are physically / chemically measurable. Sight aks visual perception is a physcial process of measurement. Your soul/consciousness garbage on the other hand is not testable or measurable.

>we readily experience it
No, I don't and I have no reason to assume that you do, unless you provide evidence.

>and there is very much evidence of consciousness within our brains.
Our brains are physical organs. The claim that they produce metaphysical magic without testable effects is absurd. Pleae go back to >>>/x/

>>5616893
Meaningless dualist drivel. Science requires evidence and testability.

[Anonymous No.5616907]

>>5616487
Well, you have to look at how to define life. Some say it is once the egg is fertilized, some say when it leaves the womb. Personally, I am with the latter. I think that a fetus is technically not its own entity. A fetus is similar to a virus: it cannot live without a host. The fetus is also part of the mother, so one could make the argument that it is only a developing growth from the mother, not its own life.

[Anonymous No.5616911]

>>5616887
>That's a baseless claim. Please prove it by providing evidence.

Evidence of what?
Consciousness isn't a theory or an object, it's a definition used to describe our sense of self-awareness.
If you want studies on brain activity that might produce phenomena associated with consciousness, there are plenty of those; but we know it exists as much as we know our sight exists upon viewing an object.

[Anonymous No.5616920]

>>5616916
was meant for

>>5616894

[Anonymous No.5616916]

No, i said it does.

See >>5616880

[Anonymous No.5616917]

>>5616906
>cannot provide any
>responds with arrogance, so as to suggest the existence of contrary knowledge without actually presenting any convincing point-of-view

>hurr durr meaningless drivel!

[Anonymous No.5616918]

>>5616911
>Consciousness isn't a theory or an object, it's a definition used to describe our sense of self-awareness.
So you admit that it's meaningless, circular, untestable and anti-scientific? Then why post it on /sci/? gb2>>>/x/

>studies on brain activity
How is (physical) brain activity supposed to prove magical dualist claims? Please educate yourself, /x/tard.

[Anonymous No.5616929]

>>5616918
>So you admit that it's meaningless, circular, untestable and anti-scientific?

where the hell did I say any of that you mongoloid.
all you are doing is being butthurt and spamming now.

back to /pol/ with you, sockpuppet

[Anonymous No.5616931]

>>5616918
There is more to science than laws and absolute truths.

There are theories, ideas, hypothesis, and much more.

Also, untested does NOT mean untestable.

[Anonymous No.5616930]

>>5616916
>>5616920
It does what? Please phrase a coherent argument and provide evidence. I asked you to name one testable effect of your non-interacting spirit crap.

>>5616917
>>cannot provide any
Provide what? You were the one who was asked to provide evidence. You were the one who claimed magical ghosts exist. I don't believe that crap. It's not my burden of proof.

[Anonymous No.5616937]

>>5616930
like I said:
>Consciousness isn't a theory or an object, it's a definition used to describe our sense of self-awareness.
>If you want studies on brain activity that might produce phenomena associated with consciousness, there are plenty of those; but we know it exists as much as we know our sight exists upon viewing an object.

[Anonymous No.5616935]

Anyone using the consciousness argument should go back to /x/

[Anonymous No.5616936]

>>5616929
>where the hell did I say any of that
In your post. I even quoted the sentence.

>back to /pol/
I've never been there and I'm not interested in politics.

>>5616931
>There are theories, ideas, hypothesis, and much more.
Magic and dualism are not scientific theories. Scientific theories require testable evidence.

>Also, untested does NOT mean untestable.
I asked you to name testable effects of your non-interacting soul/consciousness spirit nonsense. Where are they?

[Anonymous No.5616939]

>>5616907
A more appropriate metaphor would be a parasite oppose to a virus. It is also worth noting that parasite are living entities although they must rely on their host to survive. So unless you want to defend your belief that some kinds of bacteria are not living (i.e. ones that are obligate parasites) I would suggest you change your justification for your view point.

[Anonymous No.5616941]

>>5616930
When one changes their conscious, they change the way they act. Their is an effect when the origin is altered, therefor the origin has an effect.

Think about going vegan. This is against what is natural for us, but we make the decision in our conscious state of mind, and therefor there is an effect.

[Anonymous No.5616945]

>>5616936
>Consciousness isn't a theory or an object, it's a definition used to describe our sense of self-awareness.
It's about as anti-scientific as sight, sound, or smell.

[Anonymous No.5616943]

>>5616941
There, lol

[Anonymous No.5616949]

>>5616937
I responded to that post. See >>5616918. Please don't repeat yourself and don't repost hogwash that has been debunked.

>>5616941
>they change the way they act
Behaviour is explained biologically. Do you not into neurochemistry?

>Their is an effect when the origin is altered
*there
What is "the origin"? Why do you believe the origin of behaviour is a soul ghost? Please take unscientific hokum to >>>/x/

>but we make the decision in our conscious
All behaviour is biologically determined. Biological systems are deterministic. Metaphysical magic is not needed in any explanation.

[Anonymous No.5616950]

>>5616936
Observations are in fact a part of science. There can be no current way to prove, or test aspects of an observation, but it doesn't mean that it can not or will not happen.

[Anonymous No.5616955]

>>5616945
Sound, smell and sight are physically testable. A magical soul/consciousness is not testable and has no evidence. If you want to believe in non-interacting ghosts, then please do it on >>>/x/. /sci/ is for the discussion of science and math

>>5616950
>Observations are in fact a part of science
Indeed. And they are physical processes of measurement. Pretty much the opposite of supernatural magic. Thanks for debunking your own fallacies.

[Anonymous No.5616956]

>>5616949
you said:
>So you admit that it's meaningless, circular, untestable and anti-scientific?

you're putting words in my mouth, not debunking anything.

What's it like not being aware of your own existence?

[Anonymous No.5616952]

>>5616945
>sight, sound, or smell.

Those are all scientifically understood phenomenon.

[Anonymous No.5616960]

>>5616939
Noted. I'll look into it sometime... I really just came up with that off the cuff, so I see there are some problems.

[Anonymous No.5616964]

>>5616949
You do not believe that behavior is affected by metaphysical magic?

What if i told you that when people consume LSD only that magic is affected, but the persons behavior is altered because what he is perceiving is altered.

[Anonymous No.5616962]

>>5616956
>you're putting words in my mouth, not debunking anything.
I was just responding to what you said. You gave a meaningless, untestable and circular definition.

[Anonymous No.5616967]

>>5616964
>You do not believe that behavior is affected by metaphysical magic?
I do not believe in /x/ claims without evidence.

>What if i told you that when people consume LSD only that magic is affected, but the persons behavior is altered because what he is perceiving is altered.
That's nonsensical hogwash. LSD is a chemical substance and alters the brain's chemistry, thus directly having effects on behaviour. Did you fail high school?

[Anonymous No.5616976]

>>5616955
I don't mean a magical consciousness, I mean consciousness. You know, the sort we are all experiencing, just as we are all looking at our computer monitors right now.

And why did you start using the word soul all of a sudden? It looks to me like you're trying to shift the topic in your favor.

>Sound, smell and sight are physically testable.

There are more options when it comes to testing sight and sound because they 'interact'
more with the surrounding environment; light is transmitted/ reflected by objects and makes contact with photoreceptors that produce an electrical signal that our brain processes; we know the brain is processing information. Whereas consciousness is much more 'self-contained'; we are experiencing ourselves thinking.
Never the less, there are studies on brain activity involved with consciousness just as there are brain activity associated with sight and sound.

And also, we know we are aware of ourselves as much as we know we can see. We're actively experiencing consciousness.

[Anonymous No.5616984]

>>5616976
>I don't mean a magical consciousness, I mean consciousness
... which would contradict the laws of physics and is thus magical/supernatural/metaphysical hogwash for >>>/x/

>You know, the sort we are all experiencing
I'm not experiencing any metaphysical magic and I have no reason to assume you do unless you provide evidence. Humans are biological machines and obey the laws of physics. Do you deny evolution?

>And why did you start using the word soul all of a sudden?
You did. You used one of its synonyms.

>There are more options when it comes to testing sight and sound because they 'interact'
A soul/consciousness doesn't interact and has thus no testable effects and can be dismissed.

>there are studies on brain activity
Brain activity is physical and does not allow metaphysical conclusions. Anyone who claims otherwise is a pseudoscientist and an /x/tard.

>we know we are
No, I'm not. If you are, please prove it by providing testable evidence.

[Mr. Wizard !!drW7Ntjxrbe No.5616985]

Trolling Christfag anti-abortion thread turned into consciousness >>>> /x/ thread????

SWEET!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Mr. Wizard !!drW7Ntjxrbe No.5616989]

>>5616984

'consciousness' is the working Image on the Global Workspace.

Can we argue about String Theory now?

[Anonymous No.5616988]

>>5616984
>which would contradict the laws of physics

[Anonymous No.5616991]

>>5616988
The laws of physics assume that everything that exists has to have physically testable evidence. A non-interacting ghost would contradict the laws of physics.

>>5616989
>the Global Workspace.
What's that? How is it testable?

>Can we argue about String Theory now?
Sure What do you know about string theory?

[Anonymous No.5616995]

>>5616991
Not testable is not the same thing as not science.

[Anonymous No.5616997]

>>5616995
Science is based on rationality. Believing in irrational /x/ magic claims is irrational and unscientific.

[Anonymous No.5616998]

>>5616991
>which would contradict the laws of physics
>The laws of physics assume that everything that exists has to have physically testable evidence.

please tell me you're trolling.
nobody this unabashedly stupid can exist

[Anonymous No.5617002]

>>5616998
I'm neither trolling or stupid. Please learn what the scientific method is. Did you not pay attention in school?

[Anonymous No.5617004]

On this context the word "person" refers to a legal/ethical term, thus it has no scientific relevance.
2/10

[Mr. Wizard !!drW7Ntjxrbe No.5617007]

>>5616991

How is testable?
by isolating exactly which neural structures behave in the manner postulated by the theory... and of course if we can't find any such structure... we just adjust the theory

Nothing unreal exists

strings are hypothetical one-dimensional-ish structures that exist in ten (or so) dimensions ..orginally posulated to solve the problem of the signularity of point-source fields/


and that was sort of a Rhetorical question...

[Anonymous No.5617009]

>>5616997
science is fundamentally based on observation

We have self-awareness
>observation

[Anonymous No.5617006]

>>5616995
Ofcourse it is, science demands experiment and objective testing.
If something isn't capable of being tested it can hardly be said to be within the frameworks of science, that doesn't mean it can't be mathematically modelled or philosophically pondered.

[Anonymous No.5617011]

>>5617007
>by isolating exactly which neural structures behave in the manner postulated by the theory
What theory?

>>5617009
Observation is a physical process of measurement and has nothing to do with metaphysical magic.

[Anonymous No.5617013]

>>5617002
so I guess it doesn't matter how much invalid BS is in a response; so long as you try to sound authoritative

[Mr. Wizard !!drW7Ntjxrbe No.5617014]

>>5617011

the Global Workspace theory.

[Anonymous No.5617019]

>>5617013
>so I guess it doesn't matter how much invalid BS is in a response
As long as there is invalid BS in your responses, I will do my best to correct it.

>>5617014
What does that "theory" state?

[Mr. Wizard !!drW7Ntjxrbe No.5617022]

>>5617019

You're going to have to Google that shit.
I have a job to do, and it ain't educating you.

[Anonymous No.5617023]

>>5617011
>Observation is a physical process of measurement and has nothing to do with metaphysical magic.

I'm not going to start arguing with you the definition of observation.

[Anonymous No.5617025]

>>5616487
Yes, because i) history tells us that populations not artificially controlled inevitably engage in some form of war and ii) it's more humane to kill a tabula rasa than a fully developed person.

[Mr. Wizard !!drW7Ntjxrbe No.5617030]

>>5617025

I believe we have a Winrar. Let's go get a beer!

[Anonymous No.5617034]

>>5617022
I googled it. It's nothing but metaphysical drivel. It circularly assumes a soul/consciousness and it lacks testability. Try again, /x/tard.

>>5617023
Because you know I'm right.

[Mr. Wizard !!drW7Ntjxrbe No.5617178]

>>5617034

Silly goose. I have no interest in your fanboy defense of neuroscience research.

You continuous use the word 'metaphysical' wrong..

It makes me LOL.

[Anonymous No.5617226]

>>5616596
Yes you fucking retard. We don't kill people because our feelings say so.

[Anonymous No.5617243]

>>5616487
I'm more inclined to believe the hot naked girls than the fag that's commenting on when conception occurs while weighing a slice of cheese with his scale

[Anonymous No.5617253]

Read Practical Ethics by Peter Singer

Youll understand

>non /sci/ related

[sage No.5617257]

sage

[Anonymous No.5617258]

>>5617034

>He doesn't understand what metaphysical means

Your fundamental lack of vocabulary is showing.

[Anonymous No.5617283]

>>5617226
Babies aren't people. They're retarded animals that we keep because they might someday be functional and useful human beings.

[Anonymous No.5617296]

>>5617178
If you don't like neuroscience, then don't post about it. Your delusions don't belong on the science board.

>>5617258
>metaphysics
>talk with no basis in reality.

[Mr. Wizard !!drW7Ntjxrbe No.5617334]

>>5617296

Nope. I'm just making fun of your 'No True Scotsman' approach to research.

And that is not what Metaphysics means.
You couldn't be more wrong if you tried.

[Anonymous No.5617352]

>>5617283
It doesn't matter. We don't kill them because of our feelings.

[Anonymous No.5617349]

>>5617334
The scientific method requires testable evidence. If your "theory" is lacking this, it is not scientific. And what I posted is a valid definition of metaphysics.

[Mr. Wizard !!drW7Ntjxrbe No.5617364]

>>5617349


The word is Aristotle's. One only has to read what he wrote to know what the subject matter is. If some ignorant asshat has re-defined the word latter, that is of no consequence.

[Anonymous No.5617363]

>>5617352
Our feelings can change, which can only occur through discourse on the issue. Conferring personhood to a newborn and denying it to a fetus solely because passage through a vagina is your line in the sand is pure intellectual dissonance.

[Anonymous No.5617380]

>>5617364
I'm sorry to hear that your understanding of nature is stuck on the level of ancient greeks who nowadays would be considered borderline retarded. You're lacking the intellectual and linguistic skills to comprehend science, let alone form a coherent scientific theory.

[Anonymous No.5617387]

>>5617363
It depends on the definition of personhood.

[Anonymous No.5617388]

>>5617349

I can turn anything into 'testable evidence'... because I am well trained in statistical methods and I'm a genius like that.

[Anonymous No.5617395]

>>5617388
>I can turn anything into 'testable evidence'
No, you can't.

>because I am well trained in statistical methods
my sides

[Anonymous No.5617397]

>>5617363
I feel that in this case, it is best to continue with a pro-choice stance, but rather than confer personhood to fetus's we should deny it to newborns, and consider them persons only until they can engage in communication and speaking language (or at least reach that point developmentally, to make allowances for mute children). In this case I feel that infanticide is not a moral wrong, and it is a right for parents to murder their newborn children. I feel however that allowances should be made because at this point the father may be attached to the child at this point, and the feelings of both parents rather than the mother should be considered. It is a modest proposal.

[Anonymous No.5617418]

>>5617395

Of course I can. Not everyone lacks creativity like you. Not every failed at basic math like you.

[Anonymous No.5617424]

>>5617380

You are doing a very good job of convincing me you are a Bot with only rudimentary reading comprehension.

[Anonymous No.5617430]

>>5617418
>projecting
Stay pleb, high school fag.

>>5617424
>infantile insults
Do you have no arguments?

[Anonymous No.5617439]

>>5617430

Really? You're an undergrad? Not even a disgruntled RA......

If you weren't such a douchebag, I'd feel sorry for you.

[Anonymous No.5617444]

>>5617439
>projecting again

Where are your arguments?

[Anonymous No.5617461]

>>5617444

I dropped my triptag because I had to sage other threads.

My argument is that nothing unreal exists, and there can be no rigid designators for non-existent entities.

[Anonymous No.5617465]

>>5617461
>My argument is that nothing unreal exists, and there can be no rigid designators for non-existent entities.
1. That's not an argument, that's a hypothesis that requires to be backed up by arguments.
2. If that's what you believe, you actually agree that a soul/consciousness doesn't exist. I don't see why you're arguing agsint me.

[Anonymous No.5617470]

>this thread
>getting 250 replies

I fucking hate you /sci/.

[sage No.5617483]

>>5617470

sage it!!!!

[sage No.5617486]

>>5617465

Sorry... 'soul' and 'consciousness' are not synonyms...

You are wrong. Just set there in your wrongness and be wrong.

[Anonymous No.5617491]

>>5617486
From a scientific point of view they can be treated as synonyms. The details of spiritualist ideas are irrelevant to the fact that they are unscientific nonsense, not testable, not measurable and lacking explanatory power.

[sage No.5617495]

>>5617491

Oh look.. it's 4:46.. and what words MEAN is a matter of consensus...

and you are still wrong...

[Anonymous No.5617501]

>>5617495
>Oh look.. it's 4:46
No, it isn't. Not everyone is amerifat.

>and you are still wrong...
nope

[Anonymous No.5617513]

>>5617491
>I cannot into linguistics, i better troll harder by forcing terms i don't know the fuck they mean but that are effective on increasing the butthurtness of the anons.

>>5617486
>replying to the king of /sci/
>Phanerozoic eon - Cenozoic Era - Quaternary Period - Holocene Epoch - Subatlantic Age - Year of our Lord 2015-Square root of 4.

[Anonymous No.5617616]

>>5616984
It is precisely this kind of stupid scientism which makes you unworthy of entering into discussion.

[Anonymous No.5617617]

>>5616853

[Anonymous No.5617620]

>>5616863
incorrect. all evidence is evidence for consciousness, for without it no data can be assessed as evidence.

[Anonymous No.5617621]

stop bumping this thread holy fuck

[Anonymous No.5617622]

>Is the pro-child murder stance scientifically justified?

Yes, the world is overpopulated. More abortions need to happen.

Pregnancy can not be avoided. As animals, most of us do not have the ability to refuse base instincts. Therefor abortion must happen.

The best thing would be to sterilize most of the population, but no one will agree that this is better than abortion because most of us are stupid as hell.

[Anonymous No.5617634]

>>5617616
How is it "scientism"? I't only rational not to believe in invisible non-interacting ghosts.

>>5617620
0/10, try harder

[Anonymous No.5617642]

>>5617634
*It's

[Anonymous No.5617771]

Guess how many conceptions end with implantation.
About 50%, so imagine all those dead future-humans we don't care about already. Life isn't that special if it has no perception/awareness/accumulated memory. What's the difference between using a condom and getting a first trimester abortion to the baby?

[Anonymous No.5617842]

>>5617634
Consciousness isn't a non-interacting ghost.

[Anonymous No.5617858]

>>5617842
It is because it has no testable effects. A phenomenon without effects can be dismissed.

[Anonymous No.5617870]

>>5617858
Look up the binding problem

[Anonymous No.5617885]

>>5617870
Thanks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binding_problem
>As such it is arguably outside the current scope of physical science

[Anonymous No.5617893]

>>5617885
Right. Don't confuse theoretical neuroscience with metaphysics.

[Anonymous No.5617923]

>>5616487
>270+ posts in a troll thread.
Never change, /sci/.

[Anonymous No.5617931]

>"We accept science in my religion"
>"You mean you accept evolution. There's more to science than that."
>"Like what?"
>"Like the fact that cognitive neurobiology indicates that we are our brain, not magic spirits that live inside our brains or control our bodies from a distance"
>"I will now proceed to use the exact same arguments as creationists, but re-worded for use against neurobiology instead of evolution

[Anonymous No.5617944]

>>5617931
>infantile cartoon

[Anonymous No.5617949]

>>5616487

It has too much social importance to let the science meddle with it.

The only point science can make in this is in favour of (the right to) abortion, since they can put stem cell to very good use.

[Anonymous No.5617959]

ITT: New age troll thinks trolling is pretending to be retarded
Back to ribbit OP

[Anonymous No.5617960]

>>5617944
>Using a reaction image now officially invalidates someone's post

Boy that's convenient, otherwise you'd have had to rebut it huh

[Anonymous No.5617971]

>>5617960
His point is perfectly valid. Unless the dualists ITT I have no reason to argue against him. I've been defending neuroscience against the soul/consciousness believers throughout the entire thread.

[Anonymous No.5617997]

>>5617971
Consciousness is a problem of neuroscience.

[Anonymous No.5618009]

>>5617997
Invisible non-interacting ghosts are not subject of neuroscience. Neuroscience as a science deals with testable hypotheses regarding the functions of the brain (a physical organ).

[Anonymous No.5618033]

>>5618009
Consciousness is a collection of mental states that are represented in the nervous system. How is that an invisible non-interacting ghost?

[Anonymous No.5618056]

>>5618033
Each testable mental state already has its own name. There is no need to arbitrarily rename things by using dualist/spiritualist vocabulary.

[Anonymous No.5618063]

>>5618056
Neuroscience journals disagree.

[sage No.5618081]

>>5618056
>untestable mental states
>>>/x/

[Anonymous No.5618082]

>>5618063
That's why people aren't taking neuroscience serious. Because its journals allow publication of metaphysics and spiritualism.

[Anonymous No.5618087]

>>5618082
No such problem exists.

[Anonymous No.5618094]

>>5618087
Exactly. Metaphysical magic doesn't exist. Yet alot of pseudoscientists and delusional /x/tards write about it and incorrectly claim it was backed up by neuroscience even though their conclusions are not justified.

[Anonymous No.5618103]

>>5618094
Like what?

[Anonymous No.5618215]

A fetus is a collection of human dna
A human is just a collection of dna
Killing humans is illegal
Yet killing a fetus is not

Something is wrong without laws.

[Anonymous No.5618240]

>>5618215
>A human is just a collection of dna
No

[Anonymous No.5618251]

>>5618215
>A cadaver is a collection of human dna
>A human is just a collection of dna
> Dissecting humans is illegal
>Yet dissecting a cadaver is not

There's more to life than a simple definition.

[Anonymous No.5618269]

>defining a mass of cells that barely has a rudimentary neuronal network a person, let alone a fully-functional organism

If you are going to use the OP pic as some sort of argument, you would argue that human life is defined at the cellular process level. Therefore, even your gametes are human life

[Heaven No.5618281]

y'all bakers toasting in a roll bread

[Anonymous No.5618294]

>>5618281

From the beginning..

My daddy was a Troll.

[Anonymous No.5618304]

>>5618269
>implying they're not.

Get back to /pol/ you fucking cheeky cunt.