South Dakota is introducing a bill that will ban abortion

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Elok
Any scientist who thinks a newborn could possibly be self-aware is smoking something.

I'm glad that you're sufficiently confident in your opinion that you're willing to dismiss any scientific evidence that questions or contradicts it, but please respect the fact that I lack the same confidence in your opinion.

And thought is not what separates us from animals. You ever hear of dolphins? How about chimps, or ravens?

What separates us from animals, then? The 46 chromosomes that most of us have? I fail to see how the possession of 46 chromosomes grants an entity the right to life while the possession of, e.g., 44 or 48 chromosomes, fails to grant an entity the same right. (Things might be different if we had 42 chromosomes, but 46 isn't the answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything.)

[shmily_dana]

Both of my daughters responded/recognized my voice hours after delivery. My three month old had continued to recognize and smile when she hears my voice.

[DinoDoc]

My dog recognizes my voice and wags her tail in my presence.

[Boris Godunov]

Most dogs wag their tails in anyone's presence. It's part of being a stupid dog.

[shmily_dana]

OK you are correct I agree with you now...My 4 month old can't do differential equations...She must not be a person. The three year old twins can't do them either (even working together)...I guess they are not people either. I don't why I'm wasting my time on them.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Most dogs wag their tails in anyone's presence. It's part of being a stupid dog.

[Elok]

I say that the only thing that clearly distinguishes humans from animals is...humanity. What that is, I haven't a clue, but any other, simpler answer leads to shaky ethical ground, because the only thing that all humans have in common is being members of their species. I say 46 chromosomes as distinguished from the 23 of a haploid cell, which clearly distinguishes sperm and eggs from full human embryos as far as I am concerned.

The intelligence of babies as such is not strictly relevant to my point, which is why I didn't look it up on google as you suggested. Perhaps they are closer to raccoons than gerbils when they come out, I don't know. I only know that they are NOT self-aware, which I assumed you were not implying per se. If you were, please link me to a study.

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by Elok
I only know that they are NOT self-aware, which I assumed you were not implying per se. If you were, please link me to a study.

Why do you assume this? What do you even mean by this?

Personally, my view on this is somewhat religious - I would classify the child as concious if it has free-will. Does a baby in the womb decide to kick or is it predetermined by initial condistions that it will? I think that it decides (but of course I have no way of proving it) and at that point (and presumably for some time before) they are a person.

[Buck Birdseed]

Who cares, since the abortion debate is not actually about the humanity of the faetus?

[Ramo]

A newborn child has roughly the same level of cognitive function as a gerbil.

Source, please.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Buck Birdseed
Who cares, since the abortion debate is not actually about the humanity of the faetus?

Yes. It's really about wanting the woman barefoot in the kitchen.

[MrFun]

DD -- you have to admit, that some people from both sides have their own form of rhetoric -- for some, what they "say" may not actually be what their real concern is.

[DinoDoc]

I've heard Buck spew the same crap before. It's no more interesting than when che goes on his "anti-woman" tirades in these threads.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Elok
I say that the only thing that clearly distinguishes humans from animals is...humanity. What that is, I haven't a clue, but any other, simpler answer leads to shaky ethical ground, because the only thing that all humans have in common is being members of their species.

I don't think that you can give a simpler answer than a tautology. Does this mean that you would have no qualms about wantonly killing a member of a sentient non-human species? Also, how would you respond to the dilemma that I posed to Ben in this post; which Elok in the dilemma possess "humanity"? Or did Elok bifurcate in the dilemma?

I say 46 chromosomes as distinguished from the 23 of a haploid cell, which clearly distinguishes sperm and eggs from full human embryos as far as I am concerned.

How do you know that diploid cells possess "humanity" while haploid cells do not?

I only know that they are NOT self-aware

Source?

If you were, please link me to a study.

I'm repeating myself. If you can define a set of necessary and sufficient conditions for determining an entity's sentience, then I'm all ears. If you dispute the necessary (but insufficient) condition that I have given, then I'm all ears. If you're going to keep making bald assertions as to the sentience of a newborn without ever giving a shred of support for your claims, then I'm not interested -- your "newborns have the same mental capacity as gerbils" claims already demonstrate that you're far from being an expert in the field of infant cognition, so your assertions on the subject carry no weight.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Buck Birdseed
Who cares, since the abortion debate is not actually about the humanity of the faetus?

News to me.