Are you ,or are you not your self? You are yourself when you are functioning to varying degrees of consciousness. When the existance of self is evident Others see you as a person. You also recognize yourself as a person.

When no possibility for the regaining of awareness of self exists, people say " so in so is no longer here, It is just a shell that remains."

The ability of awareness of self is a prerequsite for being your self. If one is brain dead there is no self and what remains is a biological mass.

Therefore, self, or soul if one chooses, depends on the self recgonition, and others are aware of that designation as yourself ,or not being yourself any longer.

How one uses that,as proof or not for abortion, or euthenasia is irrelivent to philosophy.

__________________
Archimedes
Because they can't wait use Rescue 8
self closing flotation rescue device.

So you can't actually change a thing via a philosophical concept, but by telling a clever enough lie it is possible to convince people to devalue a thing thus changing its percieved worth.

__________________
"It's not alive, It's not alive, It's not alive. Because I said it isnt', there's your proof jerk." ...lexi

"As far as your logical fallicy shit - shove it. I am a woman."...naturemomma

You are what you are and when you function at a different level, you are what you are functioning at a different level. You are the same being today as you were on the day you were concieved. You are older and more mature, but you can't say that you came from a teenager, or came from an infant, or came from a zygote. You were, at one time, each one of those things.

As we have seen over and over, what people "say" and what is are often two very different things.

Is it? Who am I when I am not aware? And brain death is not analogous to not having yet formed a brain. When one's brain is dead, one can't rightly be expected to recover. That is entirely different from being perfectly healthy but not yet mature to a certain level.

Only your perception of self depends on your self recognition. You are what you are whether you are aware of what or who you are or not. You were you long before you ever gained any inkling of self awareness. In fact, you were most likely over a year old before you gained any sense of self awareness. What do you suppose you were during the time from your conception until sometime longer than a year past your birth?

__________________
"It's not alive, It's not alive, It's not alive. Because I said it isnt', there's your proof jerk." ...lexi

"As far as your logical fallicy shit - shove it. I am a woman."...naturemomma

Originally Posted by r8dmarshall
Yes it is possible to make one more or less than they are, but only in the eyes of another. The philosophical treatment of anything can be cast into the theoretical relm. (That though does not change reality in a physical sense. It is not possible in an actual physical world.)

In the real world we can be made, better or worse, physcally and mentally by (the application of philosophy on our cognative awareness that effects how we live. Thus good or bad influence may mold our behavior and beliefs.)

I said it could only change in the eyes of others, not reality.

I then said that philosophy could though change the cognative beliefs, and behavior in life of a fuly cognative being; (which is totally disconnected from changing the reality or value of a physical entity.)

__________________
Archimedes
Because they can't wait use Rescue 8
self closing flotation rescue device.

You are what you are and when you function at a different level, you are what you are functioning at a different level. You are the same being today as you were on the day you were concieved. You are older and more mature, but you can't say that you came from a teenager, or came from an infant, or came from a zygote. You were, at one time, each one of those things.

When there is no cognent (function,)your word,there is no different level of function, just a biomass.

Also note I stated that there is no relivent use for philosophy to answer questions of ethics or morality. Philosophy changes nothing in the biological world.

you are a being with biomass and a cognative factor;that makes self/person. Take away the self/person and what is left is biomass.

__________________
Archimedes
Because they can't wait use Rescue 8
self closing flotation rescue device.

I believe that there is an awareness of self long before you have stated. Awareness of self begins with the ability to feel pain, hunger, and experience touch and sound through the womb. so You are not giving enough credit to awareness of self. The use of language is not a prerequisite of self.

I would have bet a million you did not expect that. I am not arguing for abortion or against. I am just pointing toward the peramiters of what makes a person/self.

__________________
Archimedes
Because they can't wait use Rescue 8
self closing flotation rescue device.

Answered you two or three times on this. No they are not.

First, all laws are not morals. Some laws are civil. There is a difference. Many laws are morally based, but not all. Many laws are morally neutral and exist to fasciliate interaction. Morality does not enter into the picture.

A "human being" is a legal term for this purpose, not a scientific term. If society wants to exclude fetuses from being covered, then they are excluded end of story. Now, you point about other races being excluded previously is valid, however from a legal pov such restrictions are not necessarily bad, they are only bad if there isn't a compelling reason for the restriction to be there.

For instance, there is a compelling interest to prevent brothers and sisters from marrying. There the "any man can marry any woman" equality is superseced because of that compelling interest.

Now you might not agree with the compelling interest, but your disagreement doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. Now, on whether a fetus is a "human being", I said no. First I believe that there is a compelling reason for a woman to have a say in this matter. Second I have shown that a fetus is incapable of surviving apart from its host. As such, its host is the human being, the fetus is an appendage until separation.

Since it is not a human being, removing it is not a capital crime.

Again, I KNOW you disagree with my creating a distinction, but get over it. We disagree.

Prove it. I have provided a mountain of credible science that states explictly that we are living human beings from the time we are concieved. Provide any credible science that states that the offspring of two human beings is ever anything but a human being.


A human being is what a human bieng is. It is both a legal and a scientific term. The legal term derives from the scientific term.

Still waiting for some credible science that states that the offspring of two human beings is ever anything but a human being. Provide that and you have the beginnings of an argument, fail and you have nothing but your own uncorroborated, unsubstantiated opinion.

__________________
"It's not alive, It's not alive, It's not alive. Because I said it isnt', there's your proof jerk." ...lexi

"As far as your logical fallicy shit - shove it. I am a woman."...naturemomma

Mutants can be considered "non human beings", some religions say that any child born outside the womb would not have a "soul". But much more to the point, science doesn't say that it is a human being. What you have quoted is interpretations of scientific data, but that is dependent on what you bring to the interpretation (i.e. it is a moral decision).


No it doesn't. Hey, I am all for you trying to equate the two, but they do not. Science is non-value added. It is a simple listing of fact. Laws detail what humans decide the facts mean. Different thing.

You really are a one hit record. Your entire argument is false and it is nothing more than a lame appeal to authority. W J Bryan had this figured out when he attacked evolution, if science shows us anything it is that the strong eat the weak. Would you REALLY want laws based on that premise.

Think about that and then rethink your position.

That's why he got his name on the "dumbest" list, bottom half with the dipshit fucktards... LOL


The dumbest (least informed) posters on AWE