From a lefty I know..."Yeah, it's murder, but that's okay as long as I view the victim as an inconvenience."
(media.kotakuinaction2.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (88)
sorted by:
Granted I'm switching it up to suit my argument but if we're going to be that specific I'd call it a form of non-sentient life. It's not unscientific, the reason being is because we do know for a fact that the nervous system and brain patterns don't form until a certain point and that's roughly where my own personal limit lies.
https://www.healthline.com/health/when-does-a-fetus-develop-a-brain#anatomy
Just plucked this off the search engine, but it's purely to backup my point since you started going on about science and actually this article has a ton of helpful information I'm quite interested in lol think inadvertently found a good source.
Which is a nonsensical argument. The zygote is designed to develop at a certain rate and sentience is not an objective measure, it’s a subjective one, it’s like saying marriage is between people that love each other. A zygote will always reach sentience if there is no interference. This is the same argument as a man put into a medical coma, if he is expected to fully recover is he not alive?
I've been wondering if a brain or nervous system is even a requirement for sentience, given what we know about green plants and other so-called "lower forms of life."
That's not even true because there are such things as stillbirths etc. even when the fetus is developing in a natural state and of course there's the issue of disease or babies becoming disabled. Also sentience absolutely can be objectively measured, we do it with animals all the time. It's the sort of thing that drives people especially vegans nuts to even consider. Then there's the issue of AI where people are fooling themselves into thinking that lines of code can have sentience.
This is something I've got a massively autistic interest in because of my own work with code and the issue of machine learning but I'll try not to get too off topic with that lol. I've been pondering a lot with regards to abortion/brain pattern argument the issue of artificial brains.
What part of interference is confusing you? There’s nothing in the biological design of a zygote that doesn’t lead to sentience. Interference in the development process is what creates a stillbirth, whether it is genetic mutation, lack of nutrients, abortion etc.
No we have a scaled concept that is constantly in flux. If you ask 500 bioethicists what sentient means you get 50000 answers. Like love, sentience is a concept, but not one held to any rigidity or objective standards.
Again these are all subjective descriptions.
I bet you also have a really smart black friend whose existence proves niggers aren't retarded.
Sentience is the ability to feel physical things. If someone was unable to feel things for longer period of time, just like how, for instance, a few people on Earth don't feel pain at all, do you call them non-sentient and you think their mothers can "abort" them just for that?
More generally speaking, why is the ability to feel pain or pleasure be the argument for whether or not you can or can't kill a baby? I really don't see how the 2 are connected at all. Is a human, to you, just defined by their nervous system?