Kurieuo wrote: ↑
Wed Mar 13, 2019 3:47 pm
Nils wrote: ↑
Wed Mar 13, 2019 1:00 pm
Kurieuo wrote: ↑
Tue Mar 12, 2019 2:42 am
Nils wrote: ↑
Mon Mar 11, 2019 1:47 am
Kurieus, you say that this view in inconsistent but you don’t explain why. It is is not a clear cut black and white rule but very few rules are and that doesn’t make them inconsistent.
Besides, is which way is my view above a world view?
You would call yourself a Materialist would you not? More specifically, you believe that only what is physical exists.
And yet, you'd draw some immaterial distinction called "personhood", which ultimately boils down to some soulish attribute, to say that an unborn physical
human life (less than 22 weeks) doesn't deserve the most basic HUMAN right -- the right to live and not be killed by someone else. All because it doesn't possess this soulish attribute aka "personhood".
Such is very inconsistent to a physical worldview. You must surely therefore not believe that only the physical world exists, right?
If you doubt that such materialism exists is one thing (and I can of course argue for that), but don’t say that it is inconsistent. And the obvious answer to your question in #7 “As an aside, I wonder where this invisible attribute called "personhood" exists in the body” is in the mind which is a property of the brain.
I don’t know what kind of materialism you think of but that is certainly not my version. To me, the material is all that exist basically, but on that psyche is formed. As Wikipedia says “Materialism is a form of philosophical monism which holds that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all things, including mental aspects and consciousness, are results of material interactions.” Thus all mental things like feelings, consciousness, love, creativity, personhood, morality etc exist. You may call such things “soulish” but there is no need to have a soul to have such properties.
Yes, Materialism is the position that all things are reducible to the material world. So then, all those seemingly qualitatively and immaterial attributes you describe (feelings, consciousness, love, creativity, etc), which don't appear to have properties of mass, weight, shape, colour, taste, etc -- where are they? And you give a response to this question:
Nils wrote:If you doubt that such materialism exists is one thing (and I can of course argue for that), but don’t say that it is inconsistent. And the obvious answer to your question in #7 “As an aside, I wonder where this invisible attribute called "personhood" exists in the body” is in the mind which is a property of the brain.
So then, your response is personhood is reduced to a property of the brain. Which or what property is this? Now of course it is here you might say "ahh, it's all much more complex than that
." While you can't give a 1 for 1 correlation in the brain, that is, point to this part of the brain and say there's the person right there... as it is a process or state in which neurons are firing in the brain -- that they fire in this way, rather than that way (right??), which at least gives us some scientific objective grounding.
So then, regardless of what anyone perceives of another person, if a person's brain is firing off signals in a certain way, then they're a person... well, it'd make sense to use that consistently when it comes to human life in the womb.
But, do you Nils? You say you'll support a woman's right to have an abortion up until 22 weeks. Did you base your 22 week judgement based upon an analysis of brain development? Based upon some personhood argument, which now I've prodded you as being inconsistent to your worldview, you claim you're not as you based personhood upon the brain. So then, let's see how consistent this 22 week cutoff point is.
By six weeks of development there is neural activity. Perhaps maybe that's too primitive for your liking, such activity is only firing in a way that isn't really a way that'd be a person. What about feeling pain? Do persons or non-persons feel pain? Maureen Condic, Ph.D. is an Associate Professor of Neurobiology and Anatomy at the University of Utah. She stated to congress that the neural circuitry responsible for the most primitive response to pain, the spinal reflex, is in place by 8 weeks of development... This is the earliest point at which the fetus experiences pain in any capacity."
Now you might debate or disagree with 8 weeks. I've just quoted an expert in the field. But, I'm wondering. Did you come to your 22 week conclusion by consistently applying your belief that personhood is had as an attribute of our brain? Did you come to the conclusion that 22 weeks is the time a person exists based upon your study, understanding and knowledge of brain development?