tonyf wrote:“a human being who has been born and is alive” to “a human being who is alive, including an unborn child at every stage of gestation, from fertilization until birth.”
Is this patently a nonsense? Surely "human being" implies sentience & sapience; an unborn child is not sapient, nor sentient - both of which imply learned behaviour....which brings in nurture vs nature. The quote above used to define a human being impies creationism, which in itself is medieval and harks back to the Dark Ages.
It is interesting that you find this statement "patently a nonsense." (Only tangentially because "nonsense" is rarely, if ever, considered a noun)
Finn, "nonsense" is an uncountable noun...in research into language use the 'frequency of use' shows that the most common usage of the word is as a noun - if you say it's not a noun, then how are describing it? Or is your definition going to be "patently a nonsense"
How do you come to the conclusion that "human being" implies sentience, or, for that matter, sapience?
Not a conclusion, more an implied,shared assumption. The qualities of sapience (having wisdom or learning) or sentience (being conscious or aware) seem to be intrinsic factors identifying humanity - as an evolved, rather than a created, species.
Your argument (assuming you understand the meaning of these two words) implies that the unconscious and the dull are not human beings.
It most certainly implies nothing of the sort. That is an interpretation you are placing on my words.
Consciousness (sentience) most definitely does not imply learned behavior.
But you have to have learned behaviour in order to respond sentiently with in a society and its mores. Sentient behaviour is rooted within the society one evolved in. A sentient response (an emotional response) has to be 'recognised' as such by any community/society. We learn to recognise
sentience because we have sapience. The two of interlinked and interdependent to a great extent.
I surely cannot prove that a fetus is self-aware, but I challenge you to prove it is not. Considering that we are discussing this issue in the context of killing the fetus, doesn't it seem to make sense to give the fetus the benefit of the doubt?
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:tonyf wrote:"a human being who has been born and is alive" to "a human being who is alive, including an unborn child at every stage of gestation, from fertilization until birth."
Is this patently a nonsense? Surely "human being" implies sentience & sapience; an unborn child is not sapient, nor sentient - both of which imply learned behaviour....which brings in nurture vs nature. The quote above used to define a human being impies creationism, which in itself is medieval and harks back to the Dark Ages.
It is interesting that you find this statement "patently a nonsense." (Only tangentially because "nonsense" is rarely, if ever, considered a noun)
Finn, "nonsense" is an uncountable noun...in research into language use the 'frequency of use' shows that the most common usage of the word is as a noun - if you say it's not a noun, then how are describing it? Or is your definition going to be "patently a nonsense"
How do you come to the conclusion that "human being" implies sentience, or, for that matter, sapience?
Not a conclusion, more an implied,shared assumption. The qualities of sapience (having wisdom or learning) or sentience (being conscious or aware) seem to be intrinsic factors identifying humanity - as an evolved, rather than a created, species.
Your argument (assuming you understand the meaning of these two words) implies that the unconscious and the dull are not human beings.
It most certainly implies nothing of the sort. That is an interpretation you are placing on my words.
Consciousness (sentience) most definitely does not imply learned behavior.
But you have to have learned behaviour in order to respond sentiently with in a society and its mores. Sentient behaviour is rooted within the society one evolved in. A sentient response (an emotional response) has to be 'recognised' as such by any community/society. We learn to recognise
sentience because we have sapience. The two of interlinked and interdependent to a great extent.
I surely cannot prove that a fetus is self-aware, but I challenge you to prove it is not. Considering that we are discussing this issue in the context of killing the fetus, doesn't it seem to make sense to give the fetus the benefit of the doubt?
I think medical and probably philosophical thinking would agree that proving self-awareness in a foetus is unlikely. But that argument does not add one iota of evidence to half-baked, fundamendalist, pseudo-religious pomposity of the original quote, to which I addressed my response. See how it works?
Tip: Color your comments if you add them to an existing quote - see above example. For my own sake I have done so for you.
tonyf wrote:Finn d'Abuzz wrote:tonyf wrote:"a human being who has been born and is alive" to "a human being who is alive, including an unborn child at every stage of gestation, from fertilization until birth."
Is this patently a nonsense? Surely "human being" implies sentience & sapience; an unborn child is not sapient, nor sentient - both of which imply learned behaviour....which brings in nurture vs nature. The quote above used to define a human being impies creationism, which in itself is medieval and harks back to the Dark Ages.
It is interesting that you find this statement "patently a nonsense." (Only tangentially because "nonsense" is rarely, if ever, considered a noun)
Finn, "nonsense" is an uncountable noun...in research into language use the 'frequency of use' shows that the most common usage of the word is as a noun - if you say it's not a noun, then how are describing it? Or is your definition going to be "patently a nonsense"
Your posting, arguably, is nonsensical, and it may very well be described as (noun) nonsense. In fact it is one of about 13 nonsenses I have recently read in this forum. :wink:
How do you come to the conclusion that "human being" implies sentience, or, for that matter, sapience?
Not a conclusion, more an implied,shared assumption. The qualities of sapience (having wisdom or learning) or sentience (being conscious or aware) seem to be intrinsic factors identifying humanity - as an evolved, rather than a created, species.
Not to quibble, but when someone leads a comment with "Surely..." I tend to consider that which follows a conclusion rather than an implied shared assumption. In any case, I'm not sure how large a group of humanity shares your assumption. Do you mean that to be human requires wisdom or learning? And if so, how do you define wisdom and learning? The logical question that follows your comment is: "If one loses conciousness or self-awareness, has one lost humanity?"
Frankly, I'm not sure how evolution and creationism (fundamental or intelligent design) enters the picture unless you feel the need to drag the topic into one which is only remotely connected.
Your argument (assuming you understand the meaning of these two words) implies that the unconscious and the dull are not human beings.
It most certainly implies nothing of the sort. That is an interpretation you are placing on my words.
I beg to differ and so, apparently, does Englishmajor. If self-awareness is a requirement of humanity, then it doesn't take a logician to arrive at the conclusion that a lack of self-awareness (conciousness) translates to a lack of humanity. It was you who introduced sapience into the equation, and therefore, by your argument, someone who has not learned from experience (dull) is not human.
Consciousness (sentience) most definitely does not imply learned behavior.
But you have to have learned behaviour in order to respond sentiently with in a society and its mores.
No you don't. You have to have learned behavior to effectively function within society, but effective functioning within society is not the mark of humanity.
Sentient behaviour is rooted within the society one evolved in. A sentient response (an emotional response) has to be 'recognised' as such by any community/society. We learn to recognise
sentience because we have sapience. The two of interlinked and interdependent to a great extent.
I don't disagree that self-awareness is required to function within society, but do disagree that functioning within society is requred for humanity.
I surely cannot prove that a fetus is self-aware, but I challenge you to prove it is not. Considering that we are discussing this issue in the context of killing the fetus, doesn't it seem to make sense to give the fetus the benefit of the doubt?
I think medical and probably philosophical thinking would agree that proving self-awareness in a foetus is unlikely. But that argument does not add one iota of evidence to half-baked, fundamendalist, pseudo-religious pomposity of the original quote, to which I addressed my response.
It appears you have a problem with religion, but it need not always bleed into all discussions.
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:tonyf wrote:Finn d'Abuzz wrote:tonyf wrote:“a human being who has been born and is alive” to “a human being who is alive, including an unborn child at every stage of gestation, from fertilization until birth.”
Is this patently a nonsense? Surely "human being" implies sentience & sapience; an unborn child is not sapient, nor sentient - both of which imply learned behaviour....which brings in nurture vs nature. The quote above used to define a human being impies creationism, which in itself is medieval and harks back to the Dark Ages.
It is interesting that you find this statement "patently a nonsense." (Only tangentially because "nonsense" is rarely, if ever, considered a noun)
Finn, "nonsense" is an uncountable noun...in research into language use the 'frequency of use' shows that the most common usage of the word is as a noun - if you say it's not a noun, then how are describing it? Or is your definition going to be "patently a nonsense"
Your posting, arguably, is nonsensical, and it may very well be described as (noun) nonsense. In fact it is one of about 13 nonsenses I have recently read in this forum. :wink:
Interesting. Correct use of the adjectival form 'nonsensical' :wink: but just because you may not agree with what I say, it doesn't mean it is nonsense.
How do you come to the conclusion that "human being" implies sentience, or, for that matter, sapience?
Not a conclusion, more an implied,shared assumption. The qualities of sapience (having wisdom or learning) or sentience (being conscious or aware) seem to be intrinsic factors identifying humanity - as an evolved, rather than a created, species.
Not to quibble, but when someone leads a comment with "Surely..." I tend to consider that which follows a conclusion rather than an implied shared assumption. In any case, I'm not sure how large a group of humanity shares your assumption.
the use of "surely" is more of an acknowledgement to like-minded thinkers; it presumes the shared assumption
Do you mean that to be human requires wisdom or learning? And if so, how do you define wisdom and learning? The logical question that follows your comment is: "If one loses conciousness or self-awareness, has one lost humanity?"
Interesting counterpoint you make. I'd lean towards the theory that one of the distinguishing features of 'humanity' is the ability to learn and acquire knowledge/wisdom - and then use that knowledge constructively. Part of that knowledge is the ability to use langauge and rational thought. Of course a loss consciousness or self-awareness does not lead to a loss of humanity - that'd be a silly assumption
Frankly, I'm not sure how evolution and creationism (fundamental or intelligent design) enters the picture unless you feel the need to drag the topic into one which is only remotely connected.
From my viewpoint, the driving forces behind the debate on abortion stem from the creationists (of either persuasion - they're both fundamentally wrong - but that's another issue) and the neo-moralists. I don't quite see how a discussion on abortion can ignore these opinions.
There does seem to be a sense of 'clinging on by the fingertips' to the opinions held by creationists - science move forwards; knowledge and understanding increases and the defence comes in the form of "intelligent design" (which in this usage has to be one of the best examples of tautology I have come across in years!). The scientific, rational position seems to concur that abortion is safe and non-controversial. It's not a procedure which holds any insuperable moral issues for me - if a woman chooses that path, then it is within her rights to do so.
Your argument (assuming you understand the meaning of these two words) implies that the unconscious and the dull are not human beings.
It most certainly implies nothing of the sort. That is an interpretation you are placing on my words.
I beg to differ and so, apparently, does Englishmajor. If self-awareness is a requirement of humanity, then it doesn't take a logician to arrive at the conclusion that a lack of self-awareness (conciousness) translates to a lack of humanity. It was you who introduced sapience into the equation, and therefore, by your argument, someone who has not learned from experience (dull) is not human.
I think you're splitting hairs here and reading in a meaning that was not implied, but interpreted.
Consciousness (sentience) most definitely does not imply learned behavior.
But you have to have learned behaviour in order to respond sentiently with in a society and its mores.
No you don't. You have to have learned behavior to effectively function within society, but effective functioning within society is not the mark of humanity.
I don't think the cororally is quite that black and white. Society contains people functioning to a greater and lesser degree - they're all part of humanity.
Sentient behaviour is rooted within the society one evolved in. A sentient response (an emotional response) has to be 'recognised' as such by any community/society. We learn to recognise
sentience because we have sapience. The two of interlinked and interdependent to a great extent.
I don't disagree that self-awareness is required to function within society, but do disagree that functioning within society is requred for humanity.
I think we're agreeing in principle, but differing on the terms we express our opinions
I surely cannot prove that a fetus is self-aware, but I challenge you to prove it is not. Considering that we are discussing this issue in the context of killing the fetus, doesn't it seem to make sense to give the fetus the benefit of the doubt?
I think medical and probably philosophical thinking would agree that proving self-awareness in a foetus is unlikely. But that argument does not add one iota of evidence to half-baked, fundamendalist, pseudo-religious pomposity of the original quote, to which I addressed my response.
It appears you have a problem with religion, but it need not always bleed into all discussions.
I have no problems with religion of any creed - I have problems with people foisting irrational thought dressed up as religion on the population (see 'intelligent design'). Recent history is littered with so-called religious propagandists becoming laughing stocks - the TV evangelist preaching one thing and then sleeping with his aides, or another embezzling donations. These examples continue through to the recent case of a Texan judge who in sentencing a 17-year-old female defendant on drug charges stipulated that in addition to her non-custodial sentence she could not:
sleep with anyone while under sentence
have more tattoos or piercing
wear clothes associated with her sub-culture
have no contact with her circle of friends
be outside after 10pm
All these additional restrictions were to "help with her moral growth" — the added element here is that the judge was a Sunday School teacher of the intelligent design, anti-abortion persuasion.
If you have a religion, live by its code - but don't inflict that code on others. I have no religion, but I have personal codes/standards which work for me and the microcosm in which I live.
