₦airaland Forum

@strikl

The difference is one of them is sentient and conscious beings generally have the ability to project into the future.

Uyi we have earlier agreed that conscious beings are necessarily life. And in your post, you clearly stated that energy is conscious and you further concurred that it was life as a result.

Intelligence is an exclusive property of conscious beings. If life has an origin, then it cannot definitely be owed to intelligence.

@strik

A 2wk old foetus has no anticipated future, it is clear. You rather insisted on his mother's vision of a future for it is good enough as anticipated future, which isn't my view.

Uyi Iredia: Yes.



I agree life has an origin. I doesn't follow, as I see it, that intelligence isn't a source of life.

Uyi Iredia: Yes. It, energy is expressed in conscious and unconscious beings, animate or inanimate matter. I just think this energy is conscious and apparently very intelligent. Especially when I consider it makes me think.

1. Energy can neither be created nor destroyed

2. Energy is life

3. Life has a beginning/origin

4. Energy is intelligent

Which of these is false?

@strik

So that leaves us with no.4. No 4 has an anticipated future.

@uyi iredia

The law is: the right to life is absolute simple! It leaves no space for what you are saying.

However from the prochoice view, sentience is the prerequisite for being a person and which much is more practicable.

@strik

In respect to your examples, I doubt if a dead body, or a foetus of 2 wks will have sentience.

^^

From wikipedia's article on sentience.

This is better:

Sentience is the ability to feel, perceive, or be conscious, or to experience subjectivity. Eighteenth century philosophers used the concept to distinguish the ability to think ("reason" from the ability to feel ("sentience". In modern western philosophy, sentience is the ability to experience sensations (known in philosophy of mind as "qualia". For Eastern philosophy, sentience is a metaphysical quality of all things that requires respect and care. The concept is central to the philosophy of animal rights, because sentience is necessary for the ability to suffer, which is held to entail certain rights.

@strik

"A foetus that is less than two weeks old.

2) A foetus that is equal to or above two weeks old.

3) A few seconds old baby.

4) An adult that has lost consciousness due to an accident.

5) A dead human body."

1, 2, 5. are not senitent (a better word cos it is more encompassing than consciousness)

While 4 is only when permanent. A newborn baby is senitent.

Uyi Iredia: Why do you think it's contradictory ?

Because a right to life isn't subject to the rights of life of others! Its absolute. The risk of endangering the mother's life ought not be a reason for aborting a foetus, if it has a right to life however it is self evident that such right is impracticable.

Uyi Iredia: This should be to a limited extent: if the child is to have a disability or if its birth presents a potential threat to the mother's. Anything else is, quite frankly, baseless. Or do you have ideas ?



This parasitism is vital to keep the human race extant. The inconvenience she should endure - except for reasons stated above.



Porn should be added to the list. It's nothing less than ironic for kids to learn about things that pleasures of sex and the need for safe sex (which can be ignored in the heat of the moment) and be taught that when consequences arise in the form of pregnancies arise they need not fear (there's free abortion waiting for 'em)

.

This is how they see it. Liberals like you innuend that sex is okay, subtly encouraging pre-marital sex, and when a baby results, you tell would-be teen mothers to kill 'em. What a way to encourage irresponsibility.



There, could be atheists who dislike abortion. Not to mention there are religious liberals who support tax-funded BC, sex-ed and 'confidential reproductive health care services'. Your conclusion, is thus, quite inane.

The right to life is absolute with the clearly stated exception. Isn't it contradictory to claim the supposed right to life is subject to the mother's right to life?

@strik

I strongly doubt if human ova and sperm cells are alien or animals. One thing is sure: they are not dead. The fact that they cannot develop into a bouncing new baby individually does nt imply they are dead nor alien.

I never said a new born baby wasn't senitent and hence not entitled to personhood. On the contrary, Roe vs Wade reveals that at some later stage during a pregnancy, a foetus acquires senitence (consciousness, some level of identity etc) in the womb. Therefore has personhood. And the mother had had a reasonable opportunity to abort the foetus prior to reaching that stage.

striktlymi: What do the following have in common:


Striktlymi as a foetus

Striktlymi at 9 months in the womb

striktlymi as a newborn

striktlymi as a teenager


...the glaring answer would be life. Since that life does not change and is associated to a human being, it is not out of place to call it a human life.

If that life is squashed when it is a foetus there will never be a striktlymi, hence a human life would have been terminated.

Now, are you saying that before the enactment of the child right act, children were not human beings? Does the law or lack of one make an individual any less human?

I didn't fail to notice how you shifted the goal post to a two week old foetus...anyways so you know my stance, I am against any form of abortion...LIFE STARTS AT CONCEPTION!!!

It is absurd to say life begins at fertilization when both the sperm cells and ova are alive and not dead. So obviously life is present in these cells up to fertilization. What most prochoice advocates like me canvass for: is an actual protection of personhood, which a further step from mere life. Senitence I'd say.

If a foetus reaches a stage where it has gain consciousness (and can be deemed senitent) then it is worth protecting.

Of what use is protecting potential personhood, when the woman's rights are at stake. There has to be a good balance.

^^^

Strik you are aware of the judgement in Roe vs Wade?

Is a 2 week old foetus conscious and capable of remembering melodies?

If the foetus isn't conscious, then we can not assume a general assumption of an anticipated future present in all conscious beings.

If they can enjoy rights, at times certain duties are ironically attached to such rights.

striktlymi: Great post Kay but this would mean cutting off every newborn child for starters since:

1) They are not aware of their identity

2) Even though some level of consciousness can be attributed to them, we definitely can't say they are capable of discretion....still this would rule out every man, woman and child who loses consciousness due to, say, accident.

3) A newborn's anticipated future is no better than that of a child in the womb.

4) Newborns know nothing about legal responsibilities.

5) Rights and powers are strange terms to newborns.


This can be extended to other humans too but I will stick to the above for now.

I didn't see this post earlier.

1. 2. I don't think Consciousness is something that grows, rather its a property right from birth, and all conscious beings are aware of their identities, however primitive or rudimentary it might be.

3. By anticipated future, I meant the aspirations and visions conscious ppl have abt the future which a baby (conscious) will have and is what protecting.

4. 5. Do you know your human rights and what it entails? Are you aware of our comprehensive traffic laws and it affects you? I stressed on capability not knowledge.

@emusan

What about the moral rules written in our"hearts"?! Shouldnt the fulfilment of such be sufficient to make heaven?

Mr anony: You don't know what you are talking about: Go read Hebrews 11:17-19

The verse further proves Abraham was willing to sacrifice his son without any objection to human sacrifice! Though he believed God can resurrect Isaac, same goes to the Aztecs who believed human sacrifice was necessary and beneficial to all.

^^
No, what matters is God's commands. Failure to obey is a sin.

OLAADEGBU: "Abraham and Jephthah" didn't sacrifice their children to Molek or any other god. Sorry to burst your bubble.

If Abraham had disobeyed God's command to sacrifice his son, it would have beeen a sin! And Abraham would have been sent punished and sent to hell!

Is the holy spirit necessary for making heaven? Is preaching to others necessary for making heaven?

If not, what is the use?

@strik

Awareness of identity

Consciousness/discretion

Has an anticipated future

Capable of obliging to legal responsibilities

Capable of exercising legal rights and powers.

Ola's hypocrisy is suffocating as well. Christianity is ultimately found on human sacrifice, how dare you point fingers at another religion for doing so. Most pagans honestly believe they are doing good.

On abortion, Roe vs Wade, reasonable enough. What actually deserves to be protected is personhood not potential personhood. Cos if we want laws to protect potential personhood, then rights to privacy will shrink into the most insignificant level. Masturbation, the use of contraceptives, withdrawal, sex life in short will be regulated.

There is the inconsistency of Free Agency and Sin. If God grants man the free agency, to do whatever he likes and be responsible for the natural consequences, then it would be an evil to restrict and eliminate such agency. On the other hand, Sin being the disobedience of God's commands entirely diminshes free will, in the sense that man is compelled with the duty of obeying God rather than following his individual judgement.

A command leaves no room for discretion and demands obedience only.

Uyi Iredia: Yes. It, energy is expressed in conscious and unconscious beings, animate or inanimate matter. I just think this energy is conscious and apparently very intelligent. Especially when I consider it makes me think.

Hope you realize that you necessarily conclude that energy is life. The big question: does life actually have an origin? Note that if we accept life has an origin, we can't talk about intelligence being a cause of life.

Reachyrich: When a market was burnt in ibadan early last year d two holy books were seen unburnt.so burning of quran and bible is a big sin even he deserve to rot in jail.

That doesn't follow! It simply means the books are indestructible by fire. Also it can be a sin for an outsider to burn holy books

sanniemoe: And who told U so? Saudi Arabia is a pure Islamic state and if u want to worship any other thing apart from Islam then do so in ur room and don't disturb the next man.. There are quite a few Christian expatriates in Jeddah but they do not worship in public or large congregation..and if u think Saudi Arabia is unfair to Christianity,then try North Korea...Christian,Muslim,whatever u r..religion is a no no there so STOP spiting ur foolishness here bloody Christian fanatic

In other words, Saudi Arabia an islamic state is in the same rank and class as repressive North Korea.

Unfortunately it is an assault against free speech. Although free speech isn't absolute, that it has to be balanced with all other human rights. In this case, the simple act of burning a Bible as a form of protest is not harmful or detrimental to the State or anyone.

And I doubt if Islam supports our secular values of human rights.

^^^

If God only knows these things, how come we know it too??

^^
On the contrary energy is expressed in the inanimate also, given that energy is the ability to do work

Uyi Iredia: I suggest that it is immaterial. The 'nature' you talk about is what you percieve.

What is the difference btw life and death? Don't u think its a matter of what death lacks?

Uyi Iredia: Then what seperates the dead from the living ?

I don't know. I can't really point that out other than talk about their natures.

Uyi Iredia: To be sure, by life do you mean the physical body.

not necessarily. At least what's not dead.