Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

WTF are you talking about? It's not about writing input and output as words moron, it's about writing a logical functions that inputs data and outputs a conclusion. That function is correct but your data is junk. Let me spell it out for:

f(x) = 2x;

And you are once again wrong, let me spell it out for you.

F(x) = 2x.

Just because I wrote a function, it doesn't mean that any other point anywhere I in this case you, had any idea what you are talking about.

Clear?

You have tried rhetoric, and you have tried to be humorous copying some input output joke from a movie or something unfortunatly, it didn't work. Because your data is junk and at no point have you disproven mine.

Now to the subject at hand:

Except, that neurons alone don't think. You can have some grown in a petri dish (human even) are you going to call them human?

What a huge leap in logic. Neurons acting together do think, and if you could hypothetically grow a human brain in a huge petri dish I'd see no reason to deny it consciousness.::

And once again wrong. I specified neurons.

Didn't say anything about activity. Which is YOUR huge leap of logic.

Just because neurons exist, it doesn't mean that they do anything, Without organisation, without connectivity, as they are during a large period after they first appear in a fetus (aka no synapses) I can tell you, you could have three jugs full of very alive neural cells with a total volume 3 times the one of a human brain, and they would do jack.

Aka, the neurons = conciousness argument is flawed.

Fine, then cite a book and find a reputable way to cite it.

*any book* from a neurology library. Once concerning and researching into higher brain, as opposed to just "brain" activity.

Now that's a cheeky way to cite one isn't it since I know where science stands on that point.

Unlike you I don't know the internet by heart.

Is that your excuse for making up BS statistics out of thin air and then claiming they aren't on the internet? Most scientific journals are online, and you would be able to find proof if you had any basis.

No, that's saying that I see no reason to waste time on an antiabortionist who doesn't know his science and likes to throw any link he has gathered in his little thinktanks around.

On the other hand, you are free to show me that THE CORTEX is not the seat of conciousnes and that THE CORTEX is active before the 20 weeks, that's one way to do it as well isn't it? Atta boy.

Fine, then get a citation. I've been able to find citations from plenty of medical journals and books which are published online.

I gave you three I believe in a single search? More plenty than yours which was I believe... a website?

Now, if one source says that its 20 weeks, and another newer source says that its 12 weeks - what do we conclude?

That mine differentiates between brain stem and cortex as it does and yours doesn't?

Duh. They're not, because it's basically just a fertilized egg at that point.

Hey, no problem with me.

That's in my "biological material" stage. Harvest it, kick it, couldn't care less. Want to grow, it can go get its own womb assuming it even qualified as a person.

Agreed. But your 20 week limit is wrong so frankly I don't care.

A statement, here is another:

The sky is full of grey stripes.

Both valueless.

Why third trimester? Where does that standard come from? If EEGs are the basis 12 weeks should be the rough cutoff.

Because I don't count brain stem EEG as thoughts. Remember,
Its not only neurons.
Its not only lots of them.
Its not only connected.
Its not only EEG
But it is EEG in the high cerebrum/cortex as well.

Where did the brain stem thing come from? Do you have a source or is it just BSed?

Already provided in my sources which differentiate between EEG controlling automatic functions like heartbeat, breathing etc, which are boring, rythmic, regular things originate from the base/ancient part of the brain and starts very early. And the complex, unique to though EEGs, cortex/thalamus side I reffered to as "higher functions".

We ought to bring back eugenics.

At 5/18/08 05:04 PM, Vaebn wrote:

WTF are you talking about? It's not about writing input and output as words moron, it's about writing a logical functions that inputs data and outputs a conclusion. That function is correct but your data is junk. Let me spell it out for:

f(x) = 2x;

And you are once again wrong, let me spell it out for you.

F(x) = 2x.

Just because I wrote a function, it doesn't mean that any other point anywhere I in this case you, had any idea what you are talking about.

Clear?

No. Your inability to "know what I'm talking about" is totally irrelevant to my argument. Junk in -> junk out is a part of chaos theory, and function theory. It is not rhetoric. Thus far you have dodged the issue, but have not provided any persuasive evidence or reasoning to refute it.

You have tried rhetoric, and you have tried to be humorous copying some input output joke from a movie or something unfortunatly, it didn't work. Because your data is junk and at no point have you disproven mine.

You think that's a joke from a movie? It's just simple logic - it's like 1 + 1 = 2. If you put bad data into a function, even if the function is perfect, you'll get bad output.

Moreover, you're reasoning (logical function) is correct that the unconscious fetus has no rights - but your data is wrong, because the fetus does become conscious.

What a huge leap in logic. Neurons acting together do think, and if you could hypothetically grow a human brain in a huge petri dish I'd see no reason to deny it consciousness.::

And once again wrong. I specified neurons.

Didn't say anything about activity. Which is YOUR huge leap of logic.

A brain is an organized collection of neurons, and activity is the EEGs that you keep talking about. How is that a leap of logic?

Just because neurons exist, it doesn't mean that they do anything, Without organisation, without connectivity, as they are during a large period after they first appear in a fetus (aka no synapses) I can tell you, you could have three jugs full of very alive neural cells with a total volume 3 times the one of a human brain, and they would do jack.

Neurons can fire without synapses. But I agree that they have to be connected and somehow communicating. Neurons

Aka, the neurons = conciousness argument is flawed.

I never made that argument. I said that a collection of neurons working in a petri dish would be just as conscious as the neurons outside the petri dish. And don't say neurons can't be connected or firing in a petri dish - they can. Scientists use petri dishes because organisms can undergo life processes while inside of one.

Fine, then cite a book and find a reputable way to cite it.

*any book* from a neurology library. Once concerning and researching into higher brain, as opposed to just "brain" activity.

What's a "neurology library"? And besides, what makes you think that a neurologist would know anything about consciousness or what the brain actually does? Looking at the brain from a functional standpoint is more the job of a cognitive scientist or computer scientist.

Neuroscience is almost always a pre-med, and every neurologist I've ever met concerns most of their time with diagnosing and treating strokes, seizures, and brain cancer. They're not really around to study the philosophy of mind, or how the brain causes consciousness, they're around to treat disorders.

No, that's saying that I see no reason to waste time on an antiabortionist who doesn't know his science and likes to throw any link he has gathered in his little thinktanks around.

Huh? I don't know my science? That's a funny thing to say, since you seem to be confusing

On the other hand, you are free to show me that THE CORTEX is not the seat of conciousnes and that THE CORTEX is active before the 20 weeks, that's one way to do it as well isn't it? Atta boy.

I showed that the cortex starts to develop at 10 weeks, and that EEGs start at 12 weeks. So far I have yet to see a source that draws the distinction that EEGs are isolated to a single part of brain, so the burden of proof lies on you, not me, to show that.

Fine, then get a citation. I've been able to find citations from plenty of medical journals and books which are published online.

I gave you three I believe in a single search? More plenty than yours which was I believe... a website?

One was a book and one was a medical journal.

Now, if one source says that its 20 weeks, and another newer source says that its 12 weeks - what do we conclude?

That mine differentiates between brain stem and cortex as it does and yours doesn't?

Show a specific quote.

Already provided in my sources which differentiate between EEG controlling automatic functions like heartbeat, breathing etc, which are boring, rythmic, regular things originate from the base/ancient part of the brain and starts very early. And the complex, unique to though EEGs, cortex/thalamus side I reffered to as "higher functions".

When I looked at your links nothing of that nature popped out at me. Can you quote where it specifically says that?

At 5/16/08 07:01 PM, Christopherr wrote:

At 5/16/08 08:10 AM, Elfer wrote: 1) What is it that makes human life valuable?

Basic human empathy.

That's not an answer. That's like saying "What did you like about that movie?" "Oh, it was good."

I mean what is it that makes human life valuable as compared to say, non-human life or inanimacy? What is the essential distinction.

2) Why choose fertilization as the cutoff point?

I'm not that old-fashioned. I only advocate abortions before any brain activity occurs and for good reasons.

So wait, we're in agreement then?

I'm sorry, but "there's no brain activity yet" is not quite good enough to justify women getting abortions for not making the right choices in their sex lives.

I also don't approve of recklessness, but I wouldn't consider having sex with the proper use of contraceptives to be reckless. My girlfriend and I use both condoms and the pill, we keep track of any times she may have missed a day and I always check for leaks or tears in the condom after use. Would you still say that we're being irresponsible?

Personally, I advocate the use of reusable pregnancy testers for any woman who wishes to have sex regularly. Also, women should not have sex (at least with condoms) if they don't want or are not prepared for children. At least that way we can minimize frivolous abortions and catch any that need to happen before the baby has brain function.

Okay, so why are we arguing? I certainly don't think that abortion should be used as the primary means of birth control. We have different reasons for what we're saying, but we want essentially the same thing. Promotion of responsible sexual activity and early detection of pregnancies for instances of abortion.

At 5/11/08 02:27 AM, Wuggawoot wrote: Alright, i get it if your pro choice, i get it if your not..
But if your not, what legal action should be taken against people who have illegal abortions?

To women:None, Is enough to have the risk of death above them.
To doctors[when patient dies or have complications]: To be doctors no more and a payment to family.