Ok you are feel to free however you want about babies consequences or outcomes..that's cool.
But what choice exactly is made when it comes to pregnancy. I mean just because you know something is possible(or a chance) it doesn't mean you literally chose that outcome.. I still doesn't see how that follows. They chose to have sex, but did they really choose to get pregnant,even if they took precautions to prohibit gestation?
taht still doesn't follow how she made the choice to become pregnant. Knoweldge of an unforuntae possiblity doesn't entail you to consequences, does it?
You consent to X thus you consent to Y.
that would lead to horrible reprocussions.
The only way a woman chooses to get pregnant is if she is family planning or planning to have a child vitro fertilization as a surrogate mother or planning on parenthood. Those seem like the only options when women conciously consent to pregnancy.
ireland banned abortion, and the number of abortions performed did not change, but the women got dangerous abortions (coat hanger, throwing themselves down stairs, etc.), and so more mothers died.
The goal of banning abortion is to preserve life, but, contrary to common sense, it actually achieves the opposite effect.
You're certainly welcome to hold that opinion. The issue that I take with such a position is that it is only the woman that bears the consequences for the choice of two people.
To force women to bring to term and birth a consequence that is not JUST HERS is a horribly skewed and unjustified sexism.
Abortion is about the equality of rights. If women do not have the same control over their reproduction as men, then it will be impossible to have equality.
I know what it's like, not scripting, and trying to make the same video over and over again. But this is a good video. I completely agree with your thoughts.
I'm pro choice, but I don't like the argument presented here. The "body" might decide to rape someone, but our conciousness counters that social wrong. I think that morally, taking a life is always wrong whether through love or hate. I was a strict pro lifer untill this tradjedy affected me personally and weighing all the options understood that when pregnant, there is no "mother" and "child". It's a pregnant woman. One entity. One life. Aborting the fetus is not murder.
I'm pro-choice. I think that no one should force a woman to go through a pregnancy. But this rant didn't make any sense. I think you have been navel-gazing with your appologist friends for too long. By this logic a guy having an epileptic seizure should be jugdged as a moronic pentecostal "full of the spirit". I think it's an insult on epileptic persons.
...(cont'd) society must acknowledge a difference between the two.
Consciousness is our only secular means of determining whether something is alive. If a man gets into and accident and his brain is completely non-functioning, he is no longer alive for all intents and purposes. By the same token, a fetus that has not yet developed a consciousness cannot be said to be alive, either.
If there is no soul, then we must go by consciousness. Where there is not consciousness, there's no mind; no life
Although I myself am pro-choice, an atheist, and not in any way a dualist, i disagree with your train of thought here. When you equate the body's involuntary "choices" are the same as the mind's "choices" you are essentially saying that manslaughter is the same as first degree murder. Let's say you get drunk and pass out, and fall over onto a baby chicken. Is that the same as you walking over to a baby chicken and stomping on it? While there is no difference in outcome, we as a (cont'd)...
I think you have to allow for some kind of dualism when talking about morals. I think you can do that without adding souls and whatnot to our metaphysical understanding of the universe.
There is a moral difference between a physical human arm swinging in empty air, and a human mind deciding to swing an arm while holding an axe over someone's head.
more to the point the concious mind may understand dire implications of the pregnancy the subconcious body may not be able to interperate. as such the body may know better than the mind that the egg is unstable and if not aborted nothing would benefit and only fatal defects would occur, unaware to the mind or to medical predictions of the egg at that stage. the duality of the mind and body is there and unfortunately you cant have a meaningfull conversation with your uterus.
DAA, Im not sure if you had thought on the notion of the woman making a "concious" decision for her body most always is for the benefit of the body, b/c there IS a dualism between the seemingly biological benefit the subconcious determines & the direct intent of the concious mind which may be directly opposite. like an eating disorder to attract a mate, or eating foods that are apetizing and seemingly benefecial to the biologic senses but harmfull to the body in realiity continued above...
Nice thing about this video is that it bypasses the normal arguments on abortion (which we all know).
As for your point, it's fine, if you don't believe in the existence of free will. Which as a naturalist (provided you're a consistent, logical one), you should have no problem rejecting. But if conscious decisionmaking is actually the result of cause/effect, then there would be no distinction between choices and unconscious bodily functions.
It seems that on your view, a person is justified in doing pretty much anything he wants to, then blaming it on the body, since the biological decision of the body is the same thing as the conscious decision that the person makes.
You summed up my frustration with the way 'body' is used in abortion arguments very well .
Though I myself, find it impossible not to make a distinction between unconscious decisions and conscious ones. To not do so seems to suggest determinism.
Having an abortion requires intent, it's a very complex decision. Miscarrying, as you said can be for incredibly trivial reasons. I don't think abortion is 'trivial'.
Strange argument. So the body decides to spread HIV so I guess it's ok to murder people. Can we ask the body why it "chooses" to do this? Maybe if we meditate long enough it will give us an answer.
Why is it that anyone who's an atheist has to support abortion? But it seems to me that ppl who r atheists take a strong position for abortion simply because this has become a trend.I am mostly anti abortion (I think abortion can be in many instances necessary) and my position is not at all motivated by religion.I took this position when I wasn't religious.
This comment is not directed toward you, James.I do not believe that u took this view bcos its trendy. But I'd like to know wat u think.
"Why is it that anyone who's an atheist has to support abortion?"
I can't speak for atheists, I can only speak for myself, and from my perspective if you reject the idea of a soul being infused into a egg at the moment of conception then there is no logical reason to give a fetus rights that exceed a mothers rights to not have to carry it to term prior to 20-24 weeks when it has the physical ability to be conscious, feel pain, or live outside the womb.
if you dont see the difference between the 2 you must be an idiot. you are very well articulated and all and seem to some what intelligent academically. logically though-something missing
Before I could support the pro-life position, I'd have to be convinced of two things: one, that the fetus is a "person," and two, that the fetus' right to life supersedes the woman's right to choose whether to allow her body to be used by the fetus. Right now, I see no reason to think either of those conditions is true.
Are you arguing that we should "give a chance" to all potential people? Where do you draw the line? You want to require women to take a fetus to term, but why not outlaw birth control as well, since that prevents potential people from being born as well?
Til there's an actual person in actual existence, you cannot cause him/her actual harm. Saying that aborting an embryo is the same as killing a person is like saying that burning a field of cotton plants is destroying a bunch of pants/shirts.
What right do you think is really being protected by the 3rd and 4th amendments, if not the right to privacy? The fact that the 9th amendment spells out the fact that the Constitution isn't to be taken as an exclusive list of rights, plus the protection from search/seizure and forbidding the government to quarter troops in private homes sounds to me a lot like the Founders meant for people to have their privacy respected by the government. You disagree?
the third and fourth amendment doesn't ensure any GENERAL right to privacy. It doesn't outline a positive right to privacy; it actually works on the presumption of the negation of privacy and provides 2 exemptions to the general rule.. "Congress shall not" To think the founders believe in a general right to privacy is not based here, since they simply dont establish any general right to privacy; if they thought so, they could've said it. the ommission of any rule indicates that they didnt.
This is exactly why I pointed out the 9th amendment. No, the fact that it's not explicitly listed is NOT evidence that they didn't feel the right existed. That's the exact position the 9th amendment was included to keep people from making.
the 9th amendment doesn't help at all in understanding which other rights there are apart from the ones listed explicitly in the constitution. one might as well argue that the 9th amendment supports the right of a fetus. thats why the supreme court in Roe V Wade argued for a basis in the 14th amendment (I think).
The 9th amendment says that the bill of rights is not to be read such that rights not explicitly included should be deemed to not exist.Therefore, saying "the right to privacy was not explicitly included, therefore it doesn't exist" is not in line with what the text of the constitution says. The founders wrote it with the intention that it be modified and interpretted over time as social issues arose.Demanding it be there in black and white is not in keeping with what it SAYS in black and white!
they are conscious in reality. Not only is it impractical, but it destroys the social system which is in place for a very good reason. It has been said that consciousness exists in order to facilitate social behavior, so failing to differentiate between conscious and unconscious "choices" is guaranteed to end in disaster.
implications, because it behaves differently than the involuntary actions of the body. If you believe we don't have free will, which it seems you do, and I think I do too, then you could argue that since we aren't actually responsible for anything we do, then we can't be held responsible for unethical actions, but that doesn't make sense, as it's not even how societies function in a natural evolutionary way. We're supposed to be held responsible for conscious choices, irrelevant of whether...
Well, we have no responsibility for what our body does, and so if the body making a decision is the same as us making a decision, then either we should be held responsible for things we do involuntarily, or we shouldn't be held responsible for things we do voluntarily. Whether you think the miscarriage of the fetus is wrong, that means either we should be responsible for both or neither, which doesn't make sense. The consciousness may be a product of the body, but it also has social... (cont)
In one case there is choice involved, and in the other there is not. Choosing to have an abortion is a selection between possible outcomes. A spontaneous abortion requires no intervention and thus there is no choice. As with any event that is an inevitability, we can't really make moral arguments.
From a deterministic standpoint, there would be no such thing as choice. Choice is an illusion which is a side effect of missing information. If this were so then all abortions are spontaneous.
I think this video might commit the naturalistic fallacy (the idea that what is natural is also good). When you say you "refuse to recognize the difference between the body making the decision on its own and the woman making the decision [of abortion] in regards to her body" I don't see the difference between that statement and the idea that "If it happens naturally it must not be wrong".
You also can't say that because something is natural it's bad either. If we can see that the body aborts fetuses for good reasons, related to the health of the mother, and the potential baby, we can't make a distinction, and say it's bad when the body makes that decision using it's mind. Only the body can decide what is best for it. Assuming the person is sane.
Personally I have absolutely no problem with abortions prior to the 20th week. There is no good reason to have a problem with it. A potential person isn't a person.
Agreed, and I purposely left out the discussion of "personhood" as I feel it is a related issue, but is, itself, a separate argument. This argument does not require I offer a solution to personhood.
I don't know if you sub to or have heard of DavidJohnWellman. He's fairly new to youtube. He recently did a two part video on abortion. Part one dealt mostly with the person-hood issue, and the second was a refutation of the biblical arguments against abortion, which I hadn't seen done on youtube before.
As TNA pointed out, the naturalistic fallacy only points out that a judgement of rightness or wrongness cannot be made based on its occurrence in nature.
So, the argument wouldn't fail on this alone.
I would need to offer a larger sketch of the issue to allow for room to give much scrutiny.
Well, the bar was missing a piece! So I had to email the company--they're shipping it soon. I finished the laundry, yeah. I did the dishes, cleaned/cut cauliflower, broccoli, grapes, strawberries and celery.
I only recorded one of the videos for my other channel, though. I'm doing the rest, and uploading, today.
please do a video explaining consciousness in terms of strict materialism! i need it badly. or even a book recommendation would be appreciated greatly. thanks.
He certainly deconstructs a lot of what we think of as conscious experience, but I wouldn't say he denies it, unless I have read over it, or have not yet come to it.
i replied, but i don't see my comment anywhere so Ill repeat it: I may have overstated my point: Dennett rejects qualia, the qualitative aspects of first person sensory experience. Check "Quining Qualia." With these, Dennett also rejects (I think) the notion of the self.
I'm not sure why your previous comment didn't post. These statements I can verify, they're on nearly every page of the later half of the book.
I think we'll agree that rejecting qualia is different than rejecting conscious experience, so I'll leave that as is.
As for the other; Dennett doesn't deny the "self" if by self we mean an identity. What Dennett rejects is the idea of a "central knower" or "central meaner" or "the ghost in the machine." "Self" is not centralized as in Cartesianism.
He more fully explains his view of "self" in a different essay, something like Self As Narrator. He describes it as a necessary fiction of linguistics; just as dualism seems ingrained into the way we speak, so is the notion of selves. Dennett says he's never "seen a self"; the notion of a person inside of me that is responsible for the thoughts and beliefs produced by my body. I think his thoughts on self is similar to that of Steven Pinker, who also rejects it.
well, qualia is certainly an essential component of conscious experiences; rejecting it (which refers to the features of subjective experience) *seems* to me to be rejecting a subjective first person experience of things; it comes daringly close to eliminativism (though it is different).
I've read Dennett's work. I must humbly disagree with him. Consciousness is, by far, the most interesting topic in philosophy (for me), so I do a lot of reading on it. Suffice to say, I think he fails in his attempt to avoid the hard problems of consciousness.
I agree with you on Dennett. Chalmers says that Dennett is mistaken in challenging Chalmers to provide evidence for consciousness instead of accepting it as a fact to be explained.
I wonder what philosophers of mind you read; i follow Searle, Nagel and Plantinga (a bit biased, sure)
If consciousness is simply some abstraction of what the body is doing (so a conscious decision is synonymous with the body's "decision") then what's the point for self-aware consciousness? In your view, the mind-body is going to do what it's going to do whether or not you're a self-aware conscious being. It makes your consciousness rather superfluous. After all, consciousness doesn't change the laws of physics (or cause-and-effect principles) in your brain chemistry, does it?
Good question, what is the point? I don't believe Dinosaurs were self aware, and they managed to survive for 180 million years, and probably would still be here if it weren't for an unfortunate asteroid impact. In a few hundred thousand years we've managed to wipe out 10's if not 100's of thousands of species, and bring ourselves to the brink of extinction.
That's hardly what I'm saying. My point is that in the case where the body elects to take a certain course of action, and the mind also elects to take the same course of action, then a qualitative, moral distinction cannot be made.
No, John. A birthed baby is a different thing entirely from a ball of cells. I make a distinction within the comments between intrapersonal and interpersonal decisions.
I love most of your video's, but this idea doesn't make sense if you apply it to other situations.
If there is no difference between a person's body killing and a person consciously making a decision to kill, then there is no morally significant difference between someone dying from cancer, and someone killing themselves with a gun.
Cancer is caused by people's own bodies after a mutation occurs.
Do you really believe that there is no moral difference between a cancer death and suicide?
This is a very tiny sketch. I'm making a single point, not formulating an entire argument.
I think you're presenting some false dichotomies.
There is the difference of intrapersonal and interpersonal decisions. There are differences in intent. I am potentially going to expand this into a much more robust discussion.
I disagree, as I don't think the body has quite the flexibility that the brain does when it comes to choices. But I'm pro-choice regardless, so we agree on the larger issue ... anyway, my *main* reason for commenting is to say good job for an unscripted video! I've tried making unscripted videos many times, but I wander & repeat myself so much that I've just given up.
Certainly there is a difference in capacity. I don't think there is a difference in "magesteria," though.
This is only part of a sketch. There is more to the discussion--I decided to leave the video the way it was to see what kind of conversation it would prompt..."I could keep going but I think I'll leave it at that." There are objections that I've anticipated and have responses to, but I'm kind of curious to see where this goes!
With unscripted videos, there's better eye contact with the camera and a more natural / conversational speaking style—but my own inability to stay focused and keep things concise (and to remember all I want to say) has forced me to accept the lesser evil of scripting my vids. Or at least write down my ideas for every paragraph. (I'm off-topic I know!)
My body "chooses" to breath. But I can stop breathing till it hurts actually.
I dont really understand your argument. A woman can choose whether or not to have an abortion. She cannot choose whether or not to have a miscarriage.
In this sketch, a miscarriage and an abortion are both terminations of pregnancy. One is the body acting of its own volition and in the other it is the mind acting of its own volition.
With the lack of dualist motivation, it can be reduced to: one is the body acting of its own volition and the other is the body acting of its own volition.
But it's clear that your argument doesn't necessarily follow.
Is that really always the case?
What about mothers who WANT their baby, yet have a miscarriage? So is it possible that the body can go against the body? Happens all of the time
The stimuli that causes miscarriage is COMPLETELY different than the stimuli that a mother *might* perceive that would influence a *decision* to get an abortion
A socio- economic stimuli is WAY different than a biological stimuli that causes miscarriage.
There are plenty of instances where the body does go against the body, John.
Also, the are some really TRIVIAL reasons the body will miscarry. They're not always life or death or fucked up genetics scenarios...could be as simply as fatigue.
James, this being a very sensitive topic, I'm open to all points of view. But, where I think you're wrong (and many hold this position) is that early in the video you essentially stated that being a man pretty much precludes you from having a valid or relevant opinion. We as a society AS A WHOLE made public policy. No exceptions. Example:only the religious can make policy regarding churches tax exemption status. See what I'm saying? So many ways that could go. You stick rock well enough...
Several people have commented on that. It's not that I'm suggesting that we're not a cooperative society. It's more that I have no, and can have no, first hand knowledge of pregnancy and the struggles involved there to.
I can offer my opinion, I can make arguments and defenses, but in the end--I think it's a bit like telling an architect how to design a building. Sure, I can know something about engineering, have my own ideas of aesthetics, but what the fuck do I know?
The "body" argument really fails. "I simply see no distinction between the body forming cancer cells and killing John Doe and him committing suicide."
If you view the loss of life after conception as wrong (baby, not mom), then the "body" doing it is still an undesirable thing and unavoidable (thereby no guilt). A mom aborting an OTHERWISE viable pregnancy is completely different. It is a willful decision to end something that would have continued if not for the intervention. ?
I think your analogy isn't exactly accurate because we're working under the assumption that the body "choosing" to abort the fetus is more analogous to the body forming white blood cells to fight off cancer. It is done for it's benefit in cases where continuing the pregnancy could result in physical, or emotional problem for the mother, and/or child.
The "body" doesn't "know" anything. It's functions are purely programmed into it via evolution. If you put an organ into a body via transplant, is it a GOOD thing when the body starts to view it as an intruder and reject it? Clearly, the body only does what it does w/o any right/wrong and without any "knowing" or caring. A fetus that doesn't take and results in a miscarriage didn't happen because the body knew it'd be a harmful pregnancy.
"A fetus that doesn't take and results in a miscarriage didn't happen because the body knew it'd be a harmful pregnancy"
From what I read in the link James provided, that's entirely untrue in almost every case where the reason is understood the body aborts to protect itself. It can be mistaken when it attacks it as an intruder, but generally it happens due to reasons that would ultimately result in physical problems for the mother, or child.
The body aborted the fetus because it just KNEW that baby would have Down Syndrome when it was born months later. Yeaaaaa, right. I think we need to stick to reality. The body has no brain apart from the one in its skull and therefore cannot "know" anything. It is a pre-programmed cause-effect. The blood sugar drops, other chemicals drop and the stomach growls, we feel the metabolic drop and go "Man, I gotta get some Taco Bell!" WE know but body is on autopilot.
#Many miscarriages are due to chromosomal problems or genetic abnormalities (50%)
(worse than Down syndrome presumably)
# Something may be wrong with the placenta.
# The fertilized egg may implant in the wrong place.
#The mother's immune system or hormone levels may effect the pregnancy. She may be sick, badly injured, under too much stress, have a deformed uterus, a weak cervix.
In all of these case, and many others our survival mechanism is causing the abortion to protect the body from damage
In the first instance the body presumably knows (in the evolutionary sense) that fetuses with certain chromosomal problems or genetic abnormalities will not survive to term, and would be more dangerous if they developed further. Mothers who's bodies reject such abnormalities were more likely to survive, and reproduce.
You've got it wrong. The fetuses are only aborted by the body if they trigger some kind of reaction based on its current state and further, what of the severely deformed and mentally retarded children that DO get born? Why didn't the body KNOW to abort them?
Nope. There is no KNOWING. Only something with a brain can KNOW.
Um, no, the body does not have a survival mechanism. Our brains and that's all. If you were attacked while asleep, what mechanism does your body employ to survive? Nothing. But if awake, your brain understands the danger and THAT sends signals to the adrenal glands to fire and you become afraid/scared/etc. and have increased heart rate and strength for a short time. The body is never making decisions and never doing anything to prevent future problems.
"Um, no, the body does not have a survival mechanism. ... what mechanism does your body employ to survive? Nothing."
Either that's one of the most ridiculous statements I've ever heard, or you're talking about something completely different. We produce white blood cells to fight infection, we involuntarily vomit when we drink to much, and the amount of alcohol we've ingested could harm us. The liver filters out dangerous chemicals. I could go on, and on.
Maybe we should have a poll and tally votes to see who is a bigger ass? That'd be interesting. Then the loser will be blocked from Das' channel. ! hahaha
For a man dumb enough to feed the trolls (ha ha), it's a very weird angle to try to play it off as if he's not the crazy guy. Go and play with your dolls.
"Hole"
Did your great-great-grandmommy "learn" you that?
You make for easy troll prey. Might want to off yourself before you become too senile.
You not only need help but you need SERIOUS help. I suggest you seek help soon. Telling people to kill themselves isn't something that speaks very well for your sanity, my friend.
If you want to be technical the body doesn't KNOW, or CARE in the sense that we know, or care with our mind, but in the sense that we know when we're hungry, or that we need to breath, or blink, or sleep.
From what you say, the difference seem to be whether one is aware of making the choice to abort or not. If one is aware does it become a moral choice? Also, if we know about the potential for miscarriage and one is opposed to abortion, is one obligated to do all in one's power to prevent a miscarriage? (even in the cases of unknown pregnancies?)
Personally I think there are valid reasons for a pregnancy not to go through. So should we bicker about these reasons?
oooooo DAA, yer going straight to hell for THIS one.
ill be shocked if this doesn't get edited and spliced into some fundy ant-abortion vid.
abortion isnt what they're after, its sex. "immoral" dirty promiscuity is the sin. sex outside of marriage. i give it 10 years maybe more before science comes up with contraception that is 100% effective, safe and benign. in witch case these crazy pew hoppers move on to something else.
thats a very intriguing position. you know I think I've heard you raise this before, but I didn't quite get the entire essence of your argument. I think you may have been drunk.
Really interesting point, James. I hadn't thought of the dualism issue as it applies to this topic. If you consider abortion to be a voluntary miscarriage, that does steer the conversation to whether or not an involuntary choice of the body and a voluntary choice of the body (because the mind is part of the body) are really any different. I'm intrigued.
i had really never heard those statistics before on miscarriages. never seen someone go at it from that perspective. my feelings , before 20 weeks i have no prob, no brain activity, no problems, after 21st week, i think it's pushing a moral line and is wrong.
I did. You rambled for two and a half minutes about the logistics of making a video, and then the rest of the video was about miscarriages and dualism. Maybe if you could outline your premises and conclusion, that'd clear things up.
Furthermore, around 1:40 you stated that your opinion shouldn't matter much on the topic, because you're a man. (continued...)
Arguments don't have genders, people do. Arguments stand or fall apart from your genitalia. Either gender can put forth the same argument and it would be equally valid or equally invalid.
Additionally, if it is your view that men's opinions should not matter much on the issue, then under the same rationale, you would ultimately have to reject the Roe v. Wade decision, since it was made by 9 men. (continued...)
Finally, it is not just a woman's issue, because it is in part from men's salaries that tax dollars are taken to fund abortions. It is men who must help in child-rearing or pay child support if the mother chooses NOT to abort; and it is the man's seed which is one of the material causes of the unborn's existence.
"Maybe if you could outline your premises and conclusion, that'd clear things up."
In a simplified nutshell what he is saying is there is no difference between the body deciding to abort a fetus, and the mind deciding to abort a fetus. Essentially the decision in either case is made by the body, and you can't make a distinction, and say one is natural, and the other isn't.
A dualist who believes the body, and mind are separate entities wouldn't necessarily agree with this conclusion.
Saying there is no difference is a bit simplistic. The body uses some internal chemical criteria that the conscious mind may not be aware of, and the conscious mind uses some external criteria that the body may not be aware of, but together it is a single decision made by the individual.
It might be a bit simplistic--maybe not so simplistic, though. The body may choose to miscarry due to something like lack of nutritional fitness of the mother. I think it not too different for a mother to decide to terminate a pregnancy because she can't afford a child.
Different, yes. Similar, likely. I would argue, both are valid.
The body making a decision to miscarriage is equivalent to saying that a tree makes the decision to let a leaf fall to the ground. There is no decision made at all.
According to your logic, do you also see no difference between my body deciding to give someone a flu that they will eventually die from and me deciding to stab them repeatedly giving them injuries that they will eventually die from?
Interesting take on this subject. Well, I do see a difference in a woman who gets cancer for no apparent reason and one who smokes and gets lung cancer. Smoking is not a good thing, but she does have a right to smoke, assuming no harm to anyone else - still its a "bad" thing.
Abortion would have an effect on husbands and other family members, but I am pro-choice.
I'm not a fan of this argument. The difference would be knowledge. When you miscarry for one of the reasons listed on the right, it is a mechanism that you automatically follow without knowledge. Sure, part of your body has knowledge about the pregnancy, but I would say it is more an involuntary reaction. When you abort you have full knowlege of the fetus, that makes a huge difference. Sisyphus has a very good video on abortion.
Because it offers no *actual* explanation. It raises questions that it has no answers for.
*Where* is the soul? By what mechanism does a non-physical soul interact with a physical body? Why is there localized brain function? Why does brain damage affect personalities? How does a soul account for things like hypnosis?
Materialist account for the functions of consciousness on materialist grounds.
There may be anomalies of conscious experience, but every hour of research gives new answers.
But in the most technical sense, that it raises questions that it itself does not answer does not mean it provides no explanation; all explanations work downstream, and questions raised by it must be explained from perhaps some other idea. The question of brain damage has been answered. Also, that there are unanswered questions is no problem, perhaps in the future we may answer them. These questions dont pose positive problems unless you format them in ways that cannot be solvable logically.
Finally, I'd argue (as I do in a video) that some anomalies cannot be reduced to objective physical states, like that of qualia, which is inherently and essentially subjective. Naturalists either reject it (like Dennett who rejects conscious experiences) or become naturalist dualists (like Chalmers).
The materialist explanation, I'd argue, has its share of questions.
What is the self? (Dennett denies that there is such a thing as a self.) Are persons responsible for their thoughts? How can a physical thing exhibit intentionality? How can a physical thing exhibit rational thought if his thoughts are sufficiently caused by non-rational prior causes? Given supervenience/epiphenomenalism, how can thoughts affect our behavior, and if they don't, why should they be true?
I wonder how many pro-lifers would change their argument if, there was closer to a 1:1 ratio of copulation and viable pregnancy. Or if they were more aware of the % of spontaneous abortions/chemical pregnancies.
I still fail to see a major all important difference between a zygote, and a sperm & egg a millisecond before conception. Granting an embryo the full protection of a baby, or even protection of what I think a fetus probably should have, just seems arbitrarily "objective."
I have to say that I don't like your argument at all. The fact that there are miscarriages doesn't in any way justify abortion. I don't see the connection between a biological occurrence and a conscious decision.
The question is: How do you define a human being? Is a Fetus already human? And if so at what point does he become human?
I think that as soon as we're dealing with a human being, abortion is morally wrong, but there is no clear threshold and that's what makes this issue so difficult.
I would agree that this is a difficult issue to discuss.
The connection between biological function and conscious decision is one made as a result of rejecting a distinction between a body and the mind that "drives" it. I see these as one-in-the same.
Consciousness, afterall, is also a biological function.
JasperAvi is making a video on this topic soon and I know he takes a different approach to the discussion.
"Consciousness, afterall, is also a biological function."
I agree, yet it's still an entirely different domain. Let's say that I start to fart nerve gas all of a sudden. I certainly couldn't be blamed for killing the people who got too close. But I would still go to jail for throwing a grenade with nerve gas...
While in both cases my body would be responsible, only in one case could I as a person be held liable.
around 5:00 you say you don't recognize the difference between the body making the decision to expel a fetus, and a woman making the same decision. But what happens if you apply this though process to other areas of life. would it be rational to say i see no difference between a hurricane killing my child (natural process) and me deciding to kill my child. would you be able to justify that the same way...if not what's the difference?
I anticipated someone attempting to make this argument.
Your analogy is false, however. Given that the mind that drives a body IS the same as the body (so there is no distinction in actions taken by either part) then it is intrapersonal.
A hurricane may be natural, but it is not intrapersonal. There's is nothing to be contested by a blind force such as a hurricane.
A person make a decision to end the life of another human who is separate, sentient and homeostatic crosses the intrapersonal...
Within my argument the end result is the same and the entity acting is the same--as I see no distinction between the body and the consciousness the body has, thus if one part makes a choice it is indistinguishable on a philosophical level.
Even if dualism were valid my argument would still be applicable.
In short, intrapersonal decisions differ greatly from interpersonal decisions.
If you could demonstrate that intrapersonal decisions have interpersonal consequences, at that these consequences can actually be quantifiable, then there is a conversation to be had.
One could argue that the intrapersonal decision to use drugs has a interpersonal affect on the family and the affects are tangible--but this argument would not apply to pregnancy termination, unless you can mount such an argument.
(pt 1) it seems as if that's the whole viewpoint of the pro-lifer. The intrapersonal decision to abort the pregnancy has the interpersonal result of the death of the baby. The only way i can think of to get around this argument is if you say that what is being terminated is not life (hence the debate).
@iBeJohnny
Ok you are feel to free however you want about babies consequences or outcomes..that's cool.
But what choice exactly is made when it comes to pregnancy. I mean just because you know something is possible(or a chance) it doesn't mean you literally chose that outcome.. I still doesn't see how that follows. They chose to have sex, but did they really choose to get pregnant,even if they took precautions to prohibit gestation?
That doesn't add up.
SoilderofScience 1 year ago
taht still doesn't follow how she made the choice to become pregnant. Knoweldge of an unforuntae possiblity doesn't entail you to consequences, does it?
You consent to X thus you consent to Y.
that would lead to horrible reprocussions.
The only way a woman chooses to get pregnant is if she is family planning or planning to have a child vitro fertilization as a surrogate mother or planning on parenthood. Those seem like the only options when women conciously consent to pregnancy.
SoilderofScience 1 year ago
This argument can support the killing of infants because of post partum depression
bigbaddeerhunter 1 year ago
Comment removed
bigbaddeerhunter 1 year ago
abortion = what we call miscarriage
induced abortion = what we call abortion
BoozyBeggar 2 years ago
ireland banned abortion, and the number of abortions performed did not change, but the women got dangerous abortions (coat hanger, throwing themselves down stairs, etc.), and so more mothers died.
The goal of banning abortion is to preserve life, but, contrary to common sense, it actually achieves the opposite effect.
gguilford72 2 years ago 2
You're certainly welcome to hold that opinion. The issue that I take with such a position is that it is only the woman that bears the consequences for the choice of two people.
To force women to bring to term and birth a consequence that is not JUST HERS is a horribly skewed and unjustified sexism.
Abortion is about the equality of rights. If women do not have the same control over their reproduction as men, then it will be impossible to have equality.
DasAmericanAtheist 2 years ago
I know what it's like, not scripting, and trying to make the same video over and over again. But this is a good video. I completely agree with your thoughts.
SeppukuDoll 2 years ago
I'm pro choice, but I don't like the argument presented here. The "body" might decide to rape someone, but our conciousness counters that social wrong. I think that morally, taking a life is always wrong whether through love or hate. I was a strict pro lifer untill this tradjedy affected me personally and weighing all the options understood that when pregnant, there is no "mother" and "child". It's a pregnant woman. One entity. One life. Aborting the fetus is not murder.
AnotherMasterMind 2 years ago
to be honest dude you really need to cut to the chase its around 4 mins and youve made one point..
stathmopoda 2 years ago
I'm pro-choice. I think that no one should force a woman to go through a pregnancy. But this rant didn't make any sense. I think you have been navel-gazing with your appologist friends for too long. By this logic a guy having an epileptic seizure should be jugdged as a moronic pentecostal "full of the spirit". I think it's an insult on epileptic persons.
kaminarigaston 2 years ago
...(cont'd) society must acknowledge a difference between the two.
Consciousness is our only secular means of determining whether something is alive. If a man gets into and accident and his brain is completely non-functioning, he is no longer alive for all intents and purposes. By the same token, a fetus that has not yet developed a consciousness cannot be said to be alive, either.
If there is no soul, then we must go by consciousness. Where there is not consciousness, there's no mind; no life
DeeEmarr 2 years ago
Although I myself am pro-choice, an atheist, and not in any way a dualist, i disagree with your train of thought here. When you equate the body's involuntary "choices" are the same as the mind's "choices" you are essentially saying that manslaughter is the same as first degree murder. Let's say you get drunk and pass out, and fall over onto a baby chicken. Is that the same as you walking over to a baby chicken and stomping on it? While there is no difference in outcome, we as a (cont'd)...
DeeEmarr 2 years ago
I think you have to allow for some kind of dualism when talking about morals. I think you can do that without adding souls and whatnot to our metaphysical understanding of the universe.
There is a moral difference between a physical human arm swinging in empty air, and a human mind deciding to swing an arm while holding an axe over someone's head.
kvaks3000 2 years ago
verum u hit exactly on what i was beginning to formulate a reply for
well put btw
UnderATallTree 2 years ago
...cont from below.
more to the point the concious mind may understand dire implications of the pregnancy the subconcious body may not be able to interperate. as such the body may know better than the mind that the egg is unstable and if not aborted nothing would benefit and only fatal defects would occur, unaware to the mind or to medical predictions of the egg at that stage. the duality of the mind and body is there and unfortunately you cant have a meaningfull conversation with your uterus.
verumINscientia 2 years ago
DAA, Im not sure if you had thought on the notion of the woman making a "concious" decision for her body most always is for the benefit of the body, b/c there IS a dualism between the seemingly biological benefit the subconcious determines & the direct intent of the concious mind which may be directly opposite. like an eating disorder to attract a mate, or eating foods that are apetizing and seemingly benefecial to the biologic senses but harmfull to the body in realiity continued above...
verumINscientia 2 years ago
Nice thing about this video is that it bypasses the normal arguments on abortion (which we all know).
As for your point, it's fine, if you don't believe in the existence of free will. Which as a naturalist (provided you're a consistent, logical one), you should have no problem rejecting. But if conscious decisionmaking is actually the result of cause/effect, then there would be no distinction between choices and unconscious bodily functions.
TheIllegit 2 years ago
It seems that on your view, a person is justified in doing pretty much anything he wants to, then blaming it on the body, since the biological decision of the body is the same thing as the conscious decision that the person makes.
SecretAsianMan000 2 years ago
You summed up my frustration with the way 'body' is used in abortion arguments very well .
Though I myself, find it impossible not to make a distinction between unconscious decisions and conscious ones. To not do so seems to suggest determinism.
Having an abortion requires intent, it's a very complex decision. Miscarrying, as you said can be for incredibly trivial reasons. I don't think abortion is 'trivial'.
manwaring 2 years ago
You asked, so please script beforehand. Anthropormorphising about women? Please consult a dictionary and respond.
Dualism? Wtf? Please explain what you're talking about BTW I don't give a shit about your laundry. Does anyone else?
leftcoastcrazy 2 years ago
Strange argument. So the body decides to spread HIV so I guess it's ok to murder people. Can we ask the body why it "chooses" to do this? Maybe if we meditate long enough it will give us an answer.
notfitforsociety 2 years ago
lol I do several takes too, don't feel bad. I think the final product is better then reading something, comes off more natural and interesting.
WayOfTheBastard 2 years ago
Why is it that anyone who's an atheist has to support abortion? But it seems to me that ppl who r atheists take a strong position for abortion simply because this has become a trend.I am mostly anti abortion (I think abortion can be in many instances necessary) and my position is not at all motivated by religion.I took this position when I wasn't religious.
This comment is not directed toward you, James.I do not believe that u took this view bcos its trendy. But I'd like to know wat u think.
saqib09 2 years ago
"Why is it that anyone who's an atheist has to support abortion?"
I can't speak for atheists, I can only speak for myself, and from my perspective if you reject the idea of a soul being infused into a egg at the moment of conception then there is no logical reason to give a fetus rights that exceed a mothers rights to not have to carry it to term prior to 20-24 weeks when it has the physical ability to be conscious, feel pain, or live outside the womb.
TheNakedAtheist 2 years ago 2
"Why is it that anyone who's an atheist has to support abortion?" I'm an atheist and I don't support abortion.
notfitforsociety 2 years ago 7
if you dont see the difference between the 2 you must be an idiot. you are very well articulated and all and seem to some what intelligent academically. logically though-something missing
icandodgebullets86 2 years ago
I too am a mind-body monist so I identify specifically with your reasoning.
Nice vid.
holysinecure 2 years ago
Before I could support the pro-life position, I'd have to be convinced of two things: one, that the fetus is a "person," and two, that the fetus' right to life supersedes the woman's right to choose whether to allow her body to be used by the fetus. Right now, I see no reason to think either of those conditions is true.
roentgen571 2 years ago
it's such a simple concept , you were given a chance to live and you are , so at least extend that courtesy to someone else , JV
jvforever72 2 years ago
That's so simple that it's not even a sufficient way to settle the issue. It's amazing how that works.
LanceDirk 2 years ago
Are you arguing that we should "give a chance" to all potential people? Where do you draw the line? You want to require women to take a fetus to term, but why not outlaw birth control as well, since that prevents potential people from being born as well?
Til there's an actual person in actual existence, you cannot cause him/her actual harm. Saying that aborting an embryo is the same as killing a person is like saying that burning a field of cotton plants is destroying a bunch of pants/shirts.
roentgen571 2 years ago
Before I support pro-choice, Id have to be convinced that the "right to privacy" can be found in the constitution.
legodesi 2 years ago
What right do you think is really being protected by the 3rd and 4th amendments, if not the right to privacy? The fact that the 9th amendment spells out the fact that the Constitution isn't to be taken as an exclusive list of rights, plus the protection from search/seizure and forbidding the government to quarter troops in private homes sounds to me a lot like the Founders meant for people to have their privacy respected by the government. You disagree?
roentgen571 2 years ago
the third and fourth amendment doesn't ensure any GENERAL right to privacy. It doesn't outline a positive right to privacy; it actually works on the presumption of the negation of privacy and provides 2 exemptions to the general rule.. "Congress shall not" To think the founders believe in a general right to privacy is not based here, since they simply dont establish any general right to privacy; if they thought so, they could've said it. the ommission of any rule indicates that they didnt.
legodesi 2 years ago
This is exactly why I pointed out the 9th amendment. No, the fact that it's not explicitly listed is NOT evidence that they didn't feel the right existed. That's the exact position the 9th amendment was included to keep people from making.
roentgen571 2 years ago
the 9th amendment doesn't help at all in understanding which other rights there are apart from the ones listed explicitly in the constitution. one might as well argue that the 9th amendment supports the right of a fetus. thats why the supreme court in Roe V Wade argued for a basis in the 14th amendment (I think).
legodesi 2 years ago
The 9th amendment says that the bill of rights is not to be read such that rights not explicitly included should be deemed to not exist.Therefore, saying "the right to privacy was not explicitly included, therefore it doesn't exist" is not in line with what the text of the constitution says. The founders wrote it with the intention that it be modified and interpretted over time as social issues arose.Demanding it be there in black and white is not in keeping with what it SAYS in black and white!
roentgen571 2 years ago
they are conscious in reality. Not only is it impractical, but it destroys the social system which is in place for a very good reason. It has been said that consciousness exists in order to facilitate social behavior, so failing to differentiate between conscious and unconscious "choices" is guaranteed to end in disaster.
LanceDirk 2 years ago
implications, because it behaves differently than the involuntary actions of the body. If you believe we don't have free will, which it seems you do, and I think I do too, then you could argue that since we aren't actually responsible for anything we do, then we can't be held responsible for unethical actions, but that doesn't make sense, as it's not even how societies function in a natural evolutionary way. We're supposed to be held responsible for conscious choices, irrelevant of whether...
LanceDirk 2 years ago
Well, we have no responsibility for what our body does, and so if the body making a decision is the same as us making a decision, then either we should be held responsible for things we do involuntarily, or we shouldn't be held responsible for things we do voluntarily. Whether you think the miscarriage of the fetus is wrong, that means either we should be responsible for both or neither, which doesn't make sense. The consciousness may be a product of the body, but it also has social... (cont)
LanceDirk 2 years ago
In one case there is choice involved, and in the other there is not. Choosing to have an abortion is a selection between possible outcomes. A spontaneous abortion requires no intervention and thus there is no choice. As with any event that is an inevitability, we can't really make moral arguments.
From a deterministic standpoint, there would be no such thing as choice. Choice is an illusion which is a side effect of missing information. If this were so then all abortions are spontaneous.
Ormaaj 2 years ago
Wow, you're actually the first guy I see on YouTube who made a remark about "being a man". Kudos!
I'm glad you made this vid anyway. It's one of the many aspects of the issue and I hadn't thought of this one before.
Rettequetette 2 years ago
I think this video might commit the naturalistic fallacy (the idea that what is natural is also good). When you say you "refuse to recognize the difference between the body making the decision on its own and the woman making the decision [of abortion] in regards to her body" I don't see the difference between that statement and the idea that "If it happens naturally it must not be wrong".
Epydemic2020 2 years ago
That's exactly what I was saying. Natural doesn't always equal good. Natural disasters, anyone? :)
TruthSurge 2 years ago
You also can't say that because something is natural it's bad either. If we can see that the body aborts fetuses for good reasons, related to the health of the mother, and the potential baby, we can't make a distinction, and say it's bad when the body makes that decision using it's mind. Only the body can decide what is best for it. Assuming the person is sane.
TheNakedAtheist 2 years ago
continued...
Personally I have absolutely no problem with abortions prior to the 20th week. There is no good reason to have a problem with it. A potential person isn't a person.
TheNakedAtheist 2 years ago
Agreed, and I purposely left out the discussion of "personhood" as I feel it is a related issue, but is, itself, a separate argument. This argument does not require I offer a solution to personhood.
DasAmericanAtheist 2 years ago
I don't know if you sub to or have heard of DavidJohnWellman. He's fairly new to youtube. He recently did a two part video on abortion. Part one dealt mostly with the person-hood issue, and the second was a refutation of the biblical arguments against abortion, which I hadn't seen done on youtube before.
TheNakedAtheist 2 years ago
Huh?
TruthSurge 2 years ago
huh what?
TheNakedAtheist 2 years ago
As TNA pointed out, the naturalistic fallacy only points out that a judgement of rightness or wrongness cannot be made based on its occurrence in nature.
So, the argument wouldn't fail on this alone.
I would need to offer a larger sketch of the issue to allow for room to give much scrutiny.
DasAmericanAtheist 2 years ago
so how'd that bar turn out? finish all your laundry?
mortuus8 2 years ago
Well, the bar was missing a piece! So I had to email the company--they're shipping it soon. I finished the laundry, yeah. I did the dishes, cleaned/cut cauliflower, broccoli, grapes, strawberries and celery.
I only recorded one of the videos for my other channel, though. I'm doing the rest, and uploading, today.
DasAmericanAtheist 2 years ago
please do a video explaining consciousness in terms of strict materialism! i need it badly. or even a book recommendation would be appreciated greatly. thanks.
daniel0B 2 years ago
"Consciousness explained" by Daniel C. Dennett. I'm nearly finished with it, good read. I recommend taking notes--I would if I had it to do over.
DasAmericanAtheist 2 years ago
Dennett denies that people have conscious experiences. Do you agree with that?
legodesi 2 years ago
I would like a citation for that claim.
He certainly deconstructs a lot of what we think of as conscious experience, but I wouldn't say he denies it, unless I have read over it, or have not yet come to it.
In either case, a citation would be helpful.
DasAmericanAtheist 2 years ago
i replied, but i don't see my comment anywhere so Ill repeat it: I may have overstated my point: Dennett rejects qualia, the qualitative aspects of first person sensory experience. Check "Quining Qualia." With these, Dennett also rejects (I think) the notion of the self.
legodesi 2 years ago
I'm not sure why your previous comment didn't post. These statements I can verify, they're on nearly every page of the later half of the book.
I think we'll agree that rejecting qualia is different than rejecting conscious experience, so I'll leave that as is.
As for the other; Dennett doesn't deny the "self" if by self we mean an identity. What Dennett rejects is the idea of a "central knower" or "central meaner" or "the ghost in the machine." "Self" is not centralized as in Cartesianism.
DasAmericanAtheist 2 years ago
He more fully explains his view of "self" in a different essay, something like Self As Narrator. He describes it as a necessary fiction of linguistics; just as dualism seems ingrained into the way we speak, so is the notion of selves. Dennett says he's never "seen a self"; the notion of a person inside of me that is responsible for the thoughts and beliefs produced by my body. I think his thoughts on self is similar to that of Steven Pinker, who also rejects it.
legodesi 2 years ago
well, qualia is certainly an essential component of conscious experiences; rejecting it (which refers to the features of subjective experience) *seems* to me to be rejecting a subjective first person experience of things; it comes daringly close to eliminativism (though it is different).
legodesi 2 years ago
I've read Dennett's work. I must humbly disagree with him. Consciousness is, by far, the most interesting topic in philosophy (for me), so I do a lot of reading on it. Suffice to say, I think he fails in his attempt to avoid the hard problems of consciousness.
MisterBusta 2 years ago
MisterBusta,
I agree with you on Dennett. Chalmers says that Dennett is mistaken in challenging Chalmers to provide evidence for consciousness instead of accepting it as a fact to be explained.
I wonder what philosophers of mind you read; i follow Searle, Nagel and Plantinga (a bit biased, sure)
legodesi 2 years ago
We should just abort all of the blood drinkers, so that humanity can live in peace.
theDracoIX 2 years ago
If consciousness is simply some abstraction of what the body is doing (so a conscious decision is synonymous with the body's "decision") then what's the point for self-aware consciousness? In your view, the mind-body is going to do what it's going to do whether or not you're a self-aware conscious being. It makes your consciousness rather superfluous. After all, consciousness doesn't change the laws of physics (or cause-and-effect principles) in your brain chemistry, does it?
MisterBusta 2 years ago
"what's the point for self-aware consciousness?"
Good question, what is the point? I don't believe Dinosaurs were self aware, and they managed to survive for 180 million years, and probably would still be here if it weren't for an unfortunate asteroid impact. In a few hundred thousand years we've managed to wipe out 10's if not 100's of thousands of species, and bring ourselves to the brink of extinction.
TheNakedAtheist 2 years ago
That's hardly what I'm saying. My point is that in the case where the body elects to take a certain course of action, and the mind also elects to take the same course of action, then a qualitative, moral distinction cannot be made.
The sentient mind does plenty.
DasAmericanAtheist 2 years ago
What about the case where the mother decapitated and dismembered her 3 1/2 week old baby?
Was this a decision her body made, since the mind and body are essentially the same?
vbfl920 2 years ago
No, John. A birthed baby is a different thing entirely from a ball of cells. I make a distinction within the comments between intrapersonal and interpersonal decisions.
DasAmericanAtheist 2 years ago
And a ball of cells is different from a 6 month old fetus, which has been thoroughly documented to survive delivery.
Yet both of these are still within the 9 month gestation period.
When you say abortion, you need to specify at what stage of development it is acceptable, and at what stage it is unacceptable.
A prematurely delivered fetus IS the same thing as a birthed baby, yet you make no distinction there at all.
It's a false dichotomy to say lump of cells vs birthed baby.
vbfl920 2 years ago
I love most of your video's, but this idea doesn't make sense if you apply it to other situations.
If there is no difference between a person's body killing and a person consciously making a decision to kill, then there is no morally significant difference between someone dying from cancer, and someone killing themselves with a gun.
Cancer is caused by people's own bodies after a mutation occurs.
Do you really believe that there is no moral difference between a cancer death and suicide?
osageroarange 2 years ago
This is a very tiny sketch. I'm making a single point, not formulating an entire argument.
I think you're presenting some false dichotomies.
There is the difference of intrapersonal and interpersonal decisions. There are differences in intent. I am potentially going to expand this into a much more robust discussion.
DasAmericanAtheist 2 years ago
Well, one would be an INTERNAL BIOLOGICAL cause/effect, which *causes* a miscarriage.
And the other would be an EXTERNAL scenario that influences a *DECISION*.
vbfl920 2 years ago
right on
mobby32 2 years ago
I disagree, as I don't think the body has quite the flexibility that the brain does when it comes to choices. But I'm pro-choice regardless, so we agree on the larger issue ... anyway, my *main* reason for commenting is to say good job for an unscripted video! I've tried making unscripted videos many times, but I wander & repeat myself so much that I've just given up.
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
Certainly there is a difference in capacity. I don't think there is a difference in "magesteria," though.
This is only part of a sketch. There is more to the discussion--I decided to leave the video the way it was to see what kind of conversation it would prompt..."I could keep going but I think I'll leave it at that." There are objections that I've anticipated and have responses to, but I'm kind of curious to see where this goes!
I try to do unscripted more often than not.
DasAmericanAtheist 2 years ago
> I try to do unscripted more often than not.
With unscripted videos, there's better eye contact with the camera and a more natural / conversational speaking style—but my own inability to stay focused and keep things concise (and to remember all I want to say) has forced me to accept the lesser evil of scripting my vids. Or at least write down my ideas for every paragraph. (I'm off-topic I know!)
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
Off topic is no issue here!
This video took me an hour to make...thanks to no script.
DasAmericanAtheist 2 years ago
great points!!!!
eldogg4life 2 years ago
Go immune system! Get the parasite!
CBUEngineer 2 years ago
My body "chooses" to breath. But I can stop breathing till it hurts actually.
I dont really understand your argument. A woman can choose whether or not to have an abortion. She cannot choose whether or not to have a miscarriage.
So how can you equate the two?
KnownNoMore 2 years ago
In this sketch, a miscarriage and an abortion are both terminations of pregnancy. One is the body acting of its own volition and in the other it is the mind acting of its own volition.
With the lack of dualist motivation, it can be reduced to: one is the body acting of its own volition and the other is the body acting of its own volition.
I might expand this.
DasAmericanAtheist 2 years ago
Fair enough man. Fair enough.
robotwookie 2 years ago
But it's clear that your argument doesn't necessarily follow.
Is that really always the case?
What about mothers who WANT their baby, yet have a miscarriage? So is it possible that the body can go against the body? Happens all of the time
The stimuli that causes miscarriage is COMPLETELY different than the stimuli that a mother *might* perceive that would influence a *decision* to get an abortion
A socio- economic stimuli is WAY different than a biological stimuli that causes miscarriage.
vbfl920 2 years ago
There are plenty of instances where the body does go against the body, John.
Also, the are some really TRIVIAL reasons the body will miscarry. They're not always life or death or fucked up genetics scenarios...could be as simply as fatigue.
DasAmericanAtheist 2 years ago
I realize that. But this is what causes problems in justifying the central argument of your video.
You say: The body(mind) is making a decision on behalf of the body.
When though? Sometimes? Always? At discretion?
Its a blanket statement to say that the body is making the same decision as the body regarding miscarriage/abortion.
vbfl920 2 years ago
A sweeping generalization is being used here, in order to justify the ENTIRETY of abortion.
A fetus doesn't STAY a lump of cells for the entire 9 months, up until the time of delivery.
The closer a fetus gets to delivery, the more similar it becomes to a birthed baby, as you call it. But you provide no distinction.
You seem to imply that there's whatever happens IN the womb, and then there's a birthed baby.
vbfl920 2 years ago
You also mention that a birthed baby is a different thing entirely from a lump of cells.
Well, let's push that forward a bit.
I argue that a birthed baby is NO different than a 25-35 week old fetus, which CAN survive delivery.
But again, you make no distinction regarding what is actually going on IN the womb.
So long as the fetus/baby is in the womb, you see no distinction at all in developmental stages?
Preemies/ fetuses from 22 weeks old(5 months gestation) have survived delivery.
vbfl920 2 years ago
The trivial reasons you mention are based in BIOLOGICAL cause and effect, not actual decision making.
Fatigue in some cases, can be a sufficient biological cause which produces the effect of a miscarriage.
But such things need no justification because they are not conscious *decisions*.
But this is a far cry from the triviality that can INFLUENCE, but not necessarily CAUSE, a decision.
vbfl920 2 years ago
James, this being a very sensitive topic, I'm open to all points of view. But, where I think you're wrong (and many hold this position) is that early in the video you essentially stated that being a man pretty much precludes you from having a valid or relevant opinion. We as a society AS A WHOLE made public policy. No exceptions. Example:only the religious can make policy regarding churches tax exemption status. See what I'm saying? So many ways that could go. You stick rock well enough...
robotwookie 2 years ago
'still' rock
robotwookie 2 years ago
Several people have commented on that. It's not that I'm suggesting that we're not a cooperative society. It's more that I have no, and can have no, first hand knowledge of pregnancy and the struggles involved there to.
I can offer my opinion, I can make arguments and defenses, but in the end--I think it's a bit like telling an architect how to design a building. Sure, I can know something about engineering, have my own ideas of aesthetics, but what the fuck do I know?
DasAmericanAtheist 2 years ago
I've been meaning to do a video on abortion since last november. Procrastinator am I.
HonestDiscussioner 2 years ago
Lol, same here
KnownNoMore 2 years ago
I can't believe you played the gender card
BLUEFlSH7 2 years ago
IOW, just because something happens naturally, doesn't mean it is desirable or should be emulated.
TruthSurge 2 years ago
The "body" argument really fails. "I simply see no distinction between the body forming cancer cells and killing John Doe and him committing suicide."
If you view the loss of life after conception as wrong (baby, not mom), then the "body" doing it is still an undesirable thing and unavoidable (thereby no guilt). A mom aborting an OTHERWISE viable pregnancy is completely different. It is a willful decision to end something that would have continued if not for the intervention. ?
TruthSurge 2 years ago
truthsurge i agree that their is definitely a difference im stillpro choice though
MonsterMo44 2 years ago
I think your analogy isn't exactly accurate because we're working under the assumption that the body "choosing" to abort the fetus is more analogous to the body forming white blood cells to fight off cancer. It is done for it's benefit in cases where continuing the pregnancy could result in physical, or emotional problem for the mother, and/or child.
TheNakedAtheist 2 years ago
The "body" doesn't "know" anything. It's functions are purely programmed into it via evolution. If you put an organ into a body via transplant, is it a GOOD thing when the body starts to view it as an intruder and reject it? Clearly, the body only does what it does w/o any right/wrong and without any "knowing" or caring. A fetus that doesn't take and results in a miscarriage didn't happen because the body knew it'd be a harmful pregnancy.
TruthSurge 2 years ago
"A fetus that doesn't take and results in a miscarriage didn't happen because the body knew it'd be a harmful pregnancy"
From what I read in the link James provided, that's entirely untrue in almost every case where the reason is understood the body aborts to protect itself. It can be mistaken when it attacks it as an intruder, but generally it happens due to reasons that would ultimately result in physical problems for the mother, or child.
TheNakedAtheist 2 years ago
The body aborted the fetus because it just KNEW that baby would have Down Syndrome when it was born months later. Yeaaaaa, right. I think we need to stick to reality. The body has no brain apart from the one in its skull and therefore cannot "know" anything. It is a pre-programmed cause-effect. The blood sugar drops, other chemicals drop and the stomach growls, we feel the metabolic drop and go "Man, I gotta get some Taco Bell!" WE know but body is on autopilot.
TruthSurge 2 years ago
#Many miscarriages are due to chromosomal problems or genetic abnormalities (50%)
(worse than Down syndrome presumably)
# Something may be wrong with the placenta.
# The fertilized egg may implant in the wrong place.
#The mother's immune system or hormone levels may effect the pregnancy. She may be sick, badly injured, under too much stress, have a deformed uterus, a weak cervix.
In all of these case, and many others our survival mechanism is causing the abortion to protect the body from damage
TheNakedAtheist 2 years ago
In the first instance the body presumably knows (in the evolutionary sense) that fetuses with certain chromosomal problems or genetic abnormalities will not survive to term, and would be more dangerous if they developed further. Mothers who's bodies reject such abnormalities were more likely to survive, and reproduce.
TheNakedAtheist 2 years ago
You've got it wrong. The fetuses are only aborted by the body if they trigger some kind of reaction based on its current state and further, what of the severely deformed and mentally retarded children that DO get born? Why didn't the body KNOW to abort them?
Nope. There is no KNOWING. Only something with a brain can KNOW.
TruthSurge 2 years ago
Um, no, the body does not have a survival mechanism. Our brains and that's all. If you were attacked while asleep, what mechanism does your body employ to survive? Nothing. But if awake, your brain understands the danger and THAT sends signals to the adrenal glands to fire and you become afraid/scared/etc. and have increased heart rate and strength for a short time. The body is never making decisions and never doing anything to prevent future problems.
TruthSurge 2 years ago
"Um, no, the body does not have a survival mechanism. ... what mechanism does your body employ to survive? Nothing."
Either that's one of the most ridiculous statements I've ever heard, or you're talking about something completely different. We produce white blood cells to fight infection, we involuntarily vomit when we drink to much, and the amount of alcohol we've ingested could harm us. The liver filters out dangerous chemicals. I could go on, and on.
TheNakedAtheist 2 years ago
"The body has no brain apart from the one in its skull and therefore cannot "know" anything."
I made that distinction in the continuation of the comment that you apparently didn't bother to read.
TheNakedAtheist 2 years ago
I read all of your comments, ass. I'm done with you.
TruthSurge 2 years ago
"I read all of your comments, ass. I'm done with you."
I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, but now you've proven your idiocy.
TheNakedAtheist 2 years ago
Ass.
HailCthulhu 2 years ago
Hole.
TruthSurge 2 years ago
Thanks for agreeing you're an asshole.
HailCthulhu 2 years ago
Thanks for proving that YOU'RE one.
TruthSurge 2 years ago
That sure was an original comeback. Let's give the little guy a round of applause.
HailCthulhu 2 years ago
Please.... please don't.... don't stop. HEHEHHEHEHEH
Maybe we should have a poll and tally votes to see who is a bigger ass? That'd be interesting. Then the loser will be blocked from Das' channel. ! hahaha
TruthSurge 2 years ago
Assboy, you leave ass comments, I"ll tell you're an ass everytime.
Let's see:
*rebuttals: None. You're quite lame as you can merely try piggybacking off mine.
*who left the first you're an ass comment: you.
Tally says: You're blocked. Enjoy your mediocrity. Don't forget to wipe your face when you're done.
HailCthulhu 2 years ago
HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA
TruthSurge 2 years ago
Hmm. See you weren't serious about being blocked. So you're a liar; all the better for spreading around YouTube.
HailCthulhu 2 years ago
You need psychological help.
TruthSurge 2 years ago
You need to quit being butthurt.
HailCthulhu 2 years ago
I'm just waiting to see if you'll snap completely.
TruthSurge 2 years ago
I'm not the one getting my ass handed to me, so I'm not the one who has a reason to snap.
HailCthulhu 2 years ago
I think the readers can tell whose ass has been reamed out like Yankee Stadium and he's obviously a Lovecraft worshiper.
TruthSurge 2 years ago
Bwahahahaha!
For a man dumb enough to feed the trolls (ha ha), it's a very weird angle to try to play it off as if he's not the crazy guy. Go and play with your dolls.
"Hole"
Did your great-great-grandmommy "learn" you that?
You make for easy troll prey. Might want to off yourself before you become too senile.
HailCthulhu 2 years ago
You not only need help but you need SERIOUS help. I suggest you seek help soon. Telling people to kill themselves isn't something that speaks very well for your sanity, my friend.
TruthSurge 2 years ago
...the guy who plays with dolls.
*NOM NOM NOM*
HailCthulhu 2 years ago
*NOM NOM NOM*
Done playing with your dolls yet?
HailCthulhu 2 years ago
You must be a very sad person...
WindChildsWorld 2 years ago
You must be a very unoriginal person...
HailCthulhu 2 years ago
That, I am. Next?
WindChildsWorld 2 years ago
Next nothing. I'm not bothering with chump change. Let the door hit you on the way out.
HailCthulhu 2 years ago
continued....
If you want to be technical the body doesn't KNOW, or CARE in the sense that we know, or care with our mind, but in the sense that we know when we're hungry, or that we need to breath, or blink, or sleep.
TheNakedAtheist 2 years ago
From what you say, the difference seem to be whether one is aware of making the choice to abort or not. If one is aware does it become a moral choice? Also, if we know about the potential for miscarriage and one is opposed to abortion, is one obligated to do all in one's power to prevent a miscarriage? (even in the cases of unknown pregnancies?)
Personally I think there are valid reasons for a pregnancy not to go through. So should we bicker about these reasons?
Stephen5000 2 years ago
@ 0:49
Das, you waited nine months before doing a video on abortion?
Is that some form of fucked up irony? 0_o
MagnusIan 2 years ago 2
oooooo DAA, yer going straight to hell for THIS one.
ill be shocked if this doesn't get edited and spliced into some fundy ant-abortion vid.
abortion isnt what they're after, its sex. "immoral" dirty promiscuity is the sin. sex outside of marriage. i give it 10 years maybe more before science comes up with contraception that is 100% effective, safe and benign. in witch case these crazy pew hoppers move on to something else.
MpowerdAPE 2 years ago
look at that handsome haircut!
thats a very intriguing position. you know I think I've heard you raise this before, but I didn't quite get the entire essence of your argument. I think you may have been drunk.
very interesting. me gusta.
AHughman08 2 years ago
Really interesting point, James. I hadn't thought of the dualism issue as it applies to this topic. If you consider abortion to be a voluntary miscarriage, that does steer the conversation to whether or not an involuntary choice of the body and a voluntary choice of the body (because the mind is part of the body) are really any different. I'm intrigued.
WineisyourFriend 2 years ago
i had really never heard those statistics before on miscarriages. never seen someone go at it from that perspective. my feelings , before 20 weeks i have no prob, no brain activity, no problems, after 21st week, i think it's pushing a moral line and is wrong.
freethinker3161 2 years ago
Could be. There's certainly an argument to be made there.
DasAmericanAtheist 2 years ago
I couldn't even really gather what your argument was from this video.
jemerson85 2 years ago
Then you should have actually watched it.
DasAmericanAtheist 2 years ago
I did. You rambled for two and a half minutes about the logistics of making a video, and then the rest of the video was about miscarriages and dualism. Maybe if you could outline your premises and conclusion, that'd clear things up.
Furthermore, around 1:40 you stated that your opinion shouldn't matter much on the topic, because you're a man. (continued...)
jemerson85 2 years ago
Arguments don't have genders, people do. Arguments stand or fall apart from your genitalia. Either gender can put forth the same argument and it would be equally valid or equally invalid.
Additionally, if it is your view that men's opinions should not matter much on the issue, then under the same rationale, you would ultimately have to reject the Roe v. Wade decision, since it was made by 9 men. (continued...)
jemerson85 2 years ago 3
Finally, it is not just a woman's issue, because it is in part from men's salaries that tax dollars are taken to fund abortions. It is men who must help in child-rearing or pay child support if the mother chooses NOT to abort; and it is the man's seed which is one of the material causes of the unborn's existence.
jemerson85 2 years ago
"Maybe if you could outline your premises and conclusion, that'd clear things up."
In a simplified nutshell what he is saying is there is no difference between the body deciding to abort a fetus, and the mind deciding to abort a fetus. Essentially the decision in either case is made by the body, and you can't make a distinction, and say one is natural, and the other isn't.
A dualist who believes the body, and mind are separate entities wouldn't necessarily agree with this conclusion.
TheNakedAtheist 2 years ago
Comment removed
TheNakedAtheist 2 years ago
continued....
Saying there is no difference is a bit simplistic. The body uses some internal chemical criteria that the conscious mind may not be aware of, and the conscious mind uses some external criteria that the body may not be aware of, but together it is a single decision made by the individual.
TheNakedAtheist 2 years ago
It might be a bit simplistic--maybe not so simplistic, though. The body may choose to miscarry due to something like lack of nutritional fitness of the mother. I think it not too different for a mother to decide to terminate a pregnancy because she can't afford a child.
Different, yes. Similar, likely. I would argue, both are valid.
DasAmericanAtheist 2 years ago
Sometimes the reasons can be exactly the same. A mother may spontaneously abort, or choose termination due to depression, or stress.
TheNakedAtheist 2 years ago
Exactly!
It seems you're one of the few people who's full apprehending this part of the argument.
There's still room to disagree, and beneficial argument to be had.
DasAmericanAtheist 2 years ago
The body making a decision to miscarriage is equivalent to saying that a tree makes the decision to let a leaf fall to the ground. There is no decision made at all.
According to your logic, do you also see no difference between my body deciding to give someone a flu that they will eventually die from and me deciding to stab them repeatedly giving them injuries that they will eventually die from?
Doesn't this also excuse murder?
solid444 2 years ago
no it is the same body making the dision in his anlagy but suicide maby
hens0w 2 years ago
Interesting take on this subject. Well, I do see a difference in a woman who gets cancer for no apparent reason and one who smokes and gets lung cancer. Smoking is not a good thing, but she does have a right to smoke, assuming no harm to anyone else - still its a "bad" thing.
Abortion would have an effect on husbands and other family members, but I am pro-choice.
loveisallneed 2 years ago
I'm not a fan of this argument. The difference would be knowledge. When you miscarry for one of the reasons listed on the right, it is a mechanism that you automatically follow without knowledge. Sure, part of your body has knowledge about the pregnancy, but I would say it is more an involuntary reaction. When you abort you have full knowlege of the fetus, that makes a huge difference. Sisyphus has a very good video on abortion.
gt6303c 2 years ago
interesting view point. i like that approach .
CarbonSuit 2 years ago
Why do you think consciousness cannot have a satisfatory explanation given a supernatural worldview?
legodesi 2 years ago
Because it offers no *actual* explanation. It raises questions that it has no answers for.
*Where* is the soul? By what mechanism does a non-physical soul interact with a physical body? Why is there localized brain function? Why does brain damage affect personalities? How does a soul account for things like hypnosis?
Materialist account for the functions of consciousness on materialist grounds.
There may be anomalies of conscious experience, but every hour of research gives new answers.
DasAmericanAtheist 2 years ago
But in the most technical sense, that it raises questions that it itself does not answer does not mean it provides no explanation; all explanations work downstream, and questions raised by it must be explained from perhaps some other idea. The question of brain damage has been answered. Also, that there are unanswered questions is no problem, perhaps in the future we may answer them. These questions dont pose positive problems unless you format them in ways that cannot be solvable logically.
legodesi 2 years ago
Finally, I'd argue (as I do in a video) that some anomalies cannot be reduced to objective physical states, like that of qualia, which is inherently and essentially subjective. Naturalists either reject it (like Dennett who rejects conscious experiences) or become naturalist dualists (like Chalmers).
legodesi 2 years ago
The materialist explanation, I'd argue, has its share of questions.
What is the self? (Dennett denies that there is such a thing as a self.) Are persons responsible for their thoughts? How can a physical thing exhibit intentionality? How can a physical thing exhibit rational thought if his thoughts are sufficiently caused by non-rational prior causes? Given supervenience/epiphenomenalism, how can thoughts affect our behavior, and if they don't, why should they be true?
legodesi 2 years ago
Very interesting point.
helgihg 2 years ago
The mind has an influence on your body, that's why you're "pressupossing" dualism.
jcrebel18 2 years ago
I wonder how many pro-lifers would change their argument if, there was closer to a 1:1 ratio of copulation and viable pregnancy. Or if they were more aware of the % of spontaneous abortions/chemical pregnancies.
I still fail to see a major all important difference between a zygote, and a sperm & egg a millisecond before conception. Granting an embryo the full protection of a baby, or even protection of what I think a fetus probably should have, just seems arbitrarily "objective."
brutus149 2 years ago
I have to say that I don't like your argument at all. The fact that there are miscarriages doesn't in any way justify abortion. I don't see the connection between a biological occurrence and a conscious decision.
The question is: How do you define a human being? Is a Fetus already human? And if so at what point does he become human?
I think that as soon as we're dealing with a human being, abortion is morally wrong, but there is no clear threshold and that's what makes this issue so difficult.
thalamay 2 years ago
Your disagreement is welcome.
I would agree that this is a difficult issue to discuss.
The connection between biological function and conscious decision is one made as a result of rejecting a distinction between a body and the mind that "drives" it. I see these as one-in-the same.
Consciousness, afterall, is also a biological function.
JasperAvi is making a video on this topic soon and I know he takes a different approach to the discussion.
DasAmericanAtheist 2 years ago
"Consciousness, afterall, is also a biological function."
I agree, yet it's still an entirely different domain. Let's say that I start to fart nerve gas all of a sudden. I certainly couldn't be blamed for killing the people who got too close. But I would still go to jail for throwing a grenade with nerve gas...
While in both cases my body would be responsible, only in one case could I as a person be held liable.
thalamay 2 years ago
around 5:00 you say you don't recognize the difference between the body making the decision to expel a fetus, and a woman making the same decision. But what happens if you apply this though process to other areas of life. would it be rational to say i see no difference between a hurricane killing my child (natural process) and me deciding to kill my child. would you be able to justify that the same way...if not what's the difference?
Graffight 2 years ago
I anticipated someone attempting to make this argument.
Your analogy is false, however. Given that the mind that drives a body IS the same as the body (so there is no distinction in actions taken by either part) then it is intrapersonal.
A hurricane may be natural, but it is not intrapersonal. There's is nothing to be contested by a blind force such as a hurricane.
A person make a decision to end the life of another human who is separate, sentient and homeostatic crosses the intrapersonal...
DasAmericanAtheist 2 years ago
... boundary outlined in the argument.
Within my argument the end result is the same and the entity acting is the same--as I see no distinction between the body and the consciousness the body has, thus if one part makes a choice it is indistinguishable on a philosophical level.
Even if dualism were valid my argument would still be applicable.
In short, intrapersonal decisions differ greatly from interpersonal decisions.
(con't)
DasAmericanAtheist 2 years ago
If you could demonstrate that intrapersonal decisions have interpersonal consequences, at that these consequences can actually be quantifiable, then there is a conversation to be had.
One could argue that the intrapersonal decision to use drugs has a interpersonal affect on the family and the affects are tangible--but this argument would not apply to pregnancy termination, unless you can mount such an argument.
DasAmericanAtheist 2 years ago
(pt 1) it seems as if that's the whole viewpoint of the pro-lifer. The intrapersonal decision to abort the pregnancy has the interpersonal result of the death of the baby. The only way i can think of to get around this argument is if you say that what is being terminated is not life (hence the debate).