I Can't Explain Why We Shouldn't Murder Disabled Children

[4588686]

lol. I didn't demand anything Hassan, I just asked you a question that you admittedly can't answer. It feels good. ;)

You said "And science does not have much to say on what constitutes a human person since the cognitive science [sic] are still fairly young and cannot give any sort of complete or satisfying account of what consciousness is."

 

Is it so preposterous, the way you phrased it, to interpret that as "when science can say what constitutes consciousness it can say what defines personhood and then it can therefore say what constitutes value. We just don't know what qualifies as a person yet cuz the science isn't ready"? Because that's what I extrapolated, and I don't think it's a huge reach.

 

 

So maybe it's not what u meant, but I've noticed you frequently call people out on their "faith-based" beliefs before, no? And have at least insinuated these faith-based beliefs have no place in drafting laws of public policy? If I am inaccurate in my summation, do forgive me. But if that's correct then why do you say things like
 

 

Because your belief that consciousness/self-awareness/emotional-complexity/interests is what you use to define a "person" and therefore worthy of "legal-protection," how is that NOT an "entirely faith based position."? We on the pro-life side can use science in the same way. We can say a homo sapien feotus is a human and therefore worthy of protection because all humans are worthy of protection (the latter part is yes a faith-based idea, that humans have transcendental value), but even if science can say what defines consciousness, how the HELL does that help us decide who deserves protection? It doesn't do jack shittake mushrooms if you don't buy into the wisdom of Singer and his bro-dudes who use consciousness and self-awareness as the barometer for having the right to exist.

 

 

I don't think that is a reasonable inference at all.  I was not saying that science should be the final arbiter of what constitutes personhood.  In fact I was explicitly rejecting that claim.  Lillabettt claimed, falsely, that if we just listened to science then we would give full human rights to fertalized eggs.  That is a claim that I find completely misguided because 

1-I don't think that science can ever determine answers to questions like that, although they can be one factor in making those decisions.

2-Even if the sort of scientism that Lillabettt has apparently adopted were intellectually coherent, and I don't think that it is, still the cognitive science are in such a stage of infancy that they are not currently able to answer such questions even if, as Lillabettt claims, they are theoretically capable of making such determinations once sufficiently developed.  

[Lilllabettt]

I respond when people take my name in vain, but only when they spell it right.

[4588686]

I respond when people take my name in vain, but only when they spell it right.

 

 

I have brought shame upon myself and upon my family.  

[Ice_nine]

I don't think that is a reasonable inference at all.  I was not saying that science should be the final arbiter of what constitutes personhood.  In fact I was explicitly rejecting that claim.  Lillabettt claimed, falsely, that if we just listened to science then we would give full human rights to fertalized eggs.  That is a claim that I find completely misguided because 

1-I don't think that science can ever determine answers to questions like that, although they can be one factor in making those decisions.

2-Even if the sort of scientism that Lillabettt has apparently adopted were intellectually coherent, and I don't think that it is, still the cognitive science are in such a stage of infancy that they are not currently able to answer such questions even if, as Lillabettt claims, they are theoretically capable of making such determinations once sufficiently developed.  

 

fair enough. What is personhood?