So no thalamocortical interactions, no consciousness. — Michael

If you look back at any source that asserts this, you should see that it's based on an assumption that consciousness is "localized" in the cerebral cortex. So if there are no connections between the thalamus and the cortex, one assumes that the discharges from nociceptors can't make it to the area that governs consciousness. Therefore, no pain, no awareness.

A good source should also warn you that we don't presently have NCC (neural correlates of consciousness) pinned down. What we have are theories. Do our theories on this front conform to observation? One problem with verifying this particular theory is that the fetus is sedated by the conditions in the womb. We can't just thump them and wait for an "ow." What we commonly do in medicine is look for a stress response to confirm pain, such as an increase in heart rate, or a cortisol bump. We actually do see stress responses in fetuses around 18 weeks, but are they actually conscious of anything? The truth is we don't know. We have theories.

When making a decision about life and death, one would really like to have more than a theory that any scientist would tell may change tomorrow.

The fetus is minimally conscious before that. I think you're looking for a higher level of consciousness.

The scientific evidence supports the claim that consciousness requires a brain-like structure — Michael

Ok. The fetus has a brain-like structure at 3 weeks. I'll put you down for supporting abortion up to 2 weeks after conception. :up:

I’d dismiss it as nonsense, — Michael

So your view isn't scientific. You just hold to that folk wisdom.

Consciousness requires a sufficiently complex and functioning brain (and plausibly some other brain-like structure). A zygote is just a small collection of cells. It lacks the necessary physical stuff that allows for an organism to be conscious. — Michael

Per CBC theory, cells are conscious in that they have awareness of their environments. How would you show that this view is wrong?

We know that adults are conscious and zygotes aren’t. — Michael

There's science that says that?

Why is it wrong to kill something that could survive outside the womb? — Michael

Sentiment probably. That's what's behind morality in general.

Yes, which is why it would be wrong to kill someone who’s asleep or unconscious or with locked in syndrome but not wrong to take someone who’s brain dead off life support. — Michael

I don't think there's really a scientific dividing line when it comes to consciousness, owing in part to our lack of understanding of what it is and what's required for it.

I think the reason it would feel wrong to kill a fetus over 24 weeks is that it could possibly survive outside the womb.

I wasn't suggesting that a 24 weeker is identical to a newborn.

I'd say it's with the development of thalamocortical connectivity, which occurs ~24 weeks after conception. — Michael

So there's nothing behavioral that signals cognition to you. It's a matter of wiring?

having actually developed the appropriate cognitive capabilities is required — Michael

Are these capabilities that a newborn would have? Newborns are unable to focus their eyes, their muscle movements are reflexive, and when they smile, it's a sign that they just passed gas. Do they have enough cognitive capability to show up as human?

It was a "we hold these truths to be self-evident" kind of argument and I'm American, so of course I loved it.

So you approve of abortion as long as it's reserved for blastocysts, so up to 10 days after conception.

Ok.

I don't think you have a good argument. If you do, present it.

I'm interested in hearing a good argument from you. I just haven't so far.

So though you claim we should be rational about this, you've got nothing rational to say. :up:

You have insisted that the question be approached rationally. Your presentation includes

1. An argument that ends up being a rationale for infanticide (see Hanover's comment to you on the preference issue).

2. A complaint that pro-lifers are religious.

3. Continuing misrepresentation of what abortion is (cysts) which you admit is only done for the insult-value.

If you want to apply reason to the question, why don't you say something that makes sense?

Their views also are incited by an irrelevant mythology, a curious piece of biography that partially explains their motivation. — Banno

That doesn't support your assertion that they're wrong.

If there are those who hold views to be in step with God, that doesn't mean their views are suspect. In fact, in both the USA and the UK, the majority of abolitionists were members of religious groups that condemned slavery.

You wanted to approach the question rationally and you're throwing out logical fallacies.

They overwhelmingly tend to hold these views becasue they wish to remain in agreement with their invisible friend. — Banno

That doesn't mean they're wrong. Hey, you're the one who wanted to employ reason. :lol:

I don’t think anything should be outlawed. — NOS4A2

Cool.

Therefore, it is wrong to kill a fetus. — NOS4A2

Is this something you think should be outlawed? Or are you just expressing your sentiment?

And one ring to rule them all...

Actually I still don't know what logical pluralism is supposed to mean. I'll continue trudging through the article.

But why? That's what I was asking.

That section then goes on to set out that construing "all" as broadly as possible may well lead to there being no valid arguments left — Banno

Would you want to flesh that out?

:up: :up:

The first objection is what passed through my mind as I was reading the definition of pluralism:

"One way to object to logical pluralism via cases is to agree that “case” is underspecified and admits of various interpretations, while rejecting the further step that those interpretations correspond to different relations of logical consequence. One way to do this is to insist on the largest domain for the quantifier “every” in the GTT. There is a tradition in logic that holds that for an argument to be logically valid, the conclusion must be true in unrestrictedly all cases in which the premises are true; if there are any cases at all—anywhere, of any kind—in which the premises are true and the conclusion not, then the argument is invalid. The One True Logic, then, is the one that describes the relation of truth-preserv is uyt[ation over all cases—where “all” is construed as broadly as possible." --SEP

The fly in the ointment: the Liar. Up next.

I went through the argument(s) for pluralism and it made no sense to me. It seemed the proponents are already using alternate logic, so my strategy is to move on to objections, hoping that will at least help me understand what pluralist are saying.

Yes, it’s the woman’s choice. Let’s hope she makes the moral one. — NOS4A2

But you don't favor legislating it, right?

My argument this whole time is that it’s wrong to intentionally kill a human being (unless he deserves it or it is in self-defense), to deprive him of life. A fetus is a human being. — NOS4A2

But abortion is much older than you might think. Native American women knew which plants would bring about abortion. Anti-abortion is more a Christian thing and perhaps the ethics of a community that's trying to increase its numbers.

Women, burdened by gestation, birth, and child-raising, are the ones who should be deciding what's right for themselves and their communities. That's what I think.

The Russell article was over my head, and the PhilosophyNow article didn't have enough meat, so I'm going with the SEP article on logical pluralism.

First we look at case-based logical pluralism. This is the GTT:

Generalised Tarski Thesis (GTT):
An argument is valid-x if and only if in every case-x in which the premises are true, so is the conclusion.

Case based logical pluralism is saying that the terms in the GTT are not precise enough to rule out a plurality of meanings for "valid" and "case." Different senses of these terms will give us different logics.

I don't think this is actually the kind of logical pluralism I was thinking of though. This is just an issue with terminology. It's no threat to logical monism as far as I can see. What follows is arguments for and against it.

:up: :up:

All this talk about me is fun, but can we get back on topic? — Banno

I wasn't just talking about you. The pro-choice spokesperson said abortion is not a matter of morality, it's about the right to choose.

No, if someone is complaining that it's a moral issue, it's a moral issue. Meet them in that ground and tell them how you feel.

So far as your claim, you seem to think that reasons and arguments are irrelevant to moral decisions, — Banno

Very much so. Your own morality isn't based on arguments. It comes from the way you feel.

Are you trying to convince us that we ought not be having any discussions, by having a discussion? — Banno

No. I'm pointing out that you're building arguments that no one will hear but your allies. Your opponents aren't going to hear you because there's no mutual respect.

Abortion is a moral issue. Pro-choice ought to start with that. Let it be known that you're ok with ending the life of a fetus. Have the guts to say it.

So, on your own argument, frank, if we don't look to the wider picture but only our "feels", how are we to deal with disagreement? If you would rule out discourse, what would you rule in? But moreover, why? — Banno

What you're referring to as the "wider picture" is basically logic. How does logic have any force for you if you're a logical pluralist?

This type of ignorance can't be reasoned with. — AmadeusD

He's infuriating. It's by design.

The reason for analysing reasons is to track down inconsistencies and sources for those opinions. — Banno

That's important to you. I get it. My attitude about it comes from an event where I was listening to a pro-choice spokesperson and it struck me that she was repeating the arguments Southerners made to defend slavery. We have a right, they aren't human...

I won't try to explain to you how that affected me, except to say that since then I've felt strongly that mutual respect and a willingness to listen are important. If you want others to listen to you, you have to be ready to do the same.

So, which do you choose? Woman or cyst? And yes, I am obviously intentionally using extreme language, — Banno

I choose the woman, and yes, your language indicates that you have no respect for the other side. I think that's unfortunate. I really do.

The preference angle can ground the choice between the woman and the cyst. — Banno

Victor Frankl said that you can't compare one person's pain to another's. The pain in any being takes up all the available space.

The preference angle is just mumbo jumbo because for some odd reason one is resistant to saying "I value the mother's life over that of the fetus.". Just say it. You don't need to defend it. It's how you feel.

Likewise, your choice of calling it a cyst when I've already told you that most aborted material has a beating heart, is for what? Just call it a fetus. That's what it is.

:up: mañana

A cyst is just a cyst. — Banno

You know only part of the blastocyst becomes a fetus. The rest is a protective covering and the placenta.

But you can decide for yourself. — Banno

Right. The preferences-angle is BS. People decide for their own reasons.