NO BRAIN NO PAIN, AND THE FUTILITY OF
HAVING AN UNINFORMED PUBLIC DEBATE
Maltese Politicians from all sides are always harping on about the “need” to have a public debate about abortion. This is like having cooks discuss mechanical engineering and making decisions on laws regulating the building of cars based on the cooks’ majority decision. What legislators need to do is not have endless public discussions, as if the world has only just discovered abortion, but for them to read the relevant academic bioethics and philosophical literature (and I mean books, not lazy internet searches), understand them, decide, and legislate whichever way they are persuaded. Of course, this requires intelligent non-populist politicians who understand the issues involved and are prepared to do the right thing even if it may cost them votes. But that is another matter.
Far from being conductive to anything but exasperation to those who are cognisant of the issues (both philosophical and scientific) involved, public debate of the uninformed and misinformed only serves to maintain the status quo and to postpone a decision on the matter. Here are some examples of the kind of “arguments” a public debate would entail, taking samples from newspaper comment boards and my own responses. Alas, rather than, as I would ideally hope, persuading or being persuaded, reasoned arguments backed by evidence are often met with prejudice, inanity, and semi-literate twaddle. My only hope is that my own input serves to spark some curiosity and make someone look up the available published academic literature, read it, and then have an informed opinion, whatever that may be.
Here are some examples of the kind of “public debate” I am talking about. And no, I will neither correct their spelling nor their grammar but will reproduce the posts exactly as they were made.
From The Times of Malta:
Steve
Pace: …as any flat earthers would tell you ,science
is all a lie .Yes , i am deliberately comparing pro abortion activists to flat
earth conspiracy theorists.
Kenneth Cassar: Much like
flat-earthers would be those who believe that a fetus that has not yet developed
a brain can feel anything or even can care whether it exists at all, and calls
that a baby.
But go on, keep believing in talking snakes and other
fairy-tales.
Steve Pace: You fit
perfectly in the flerf community. Go on prove me wrong. Prove science and
biology wrong and show us evidence that contradicts a ferus being a human being
and i challenge you to prove tgat a pregnancy is not a period if human
development.
Try hard as you can . I guarantee that you will not get back
with any scientific evidence.
Kenneth Cassar: A fetus is
part of the initial stages of development into a sentient and conscious human
being. However, before the emergence of a sufficiently developed brain, the
fetus at that stage is just a body that cannot experience anything or even know
or care that it exists.
My claim is supported by both the science and common sense (no
brain, no experiences). Disprove it, "flerf".
Steve Pace: You flerfs
never disappoint. Just as predictable as yesterday’s lottery you rather create
your own pseudo science to rationalize with the facts . As i expected, you came
with 0 science but a word salad .
A fetus is scientifically nothing less than what you were after you yourself
were born . Nothing less.
Same dna , same function same chemical composition and exactly
the same outcome.
Keep deluding yourself into believing earth is flat .
Kenneth Cassar: People
who never read science will mistake neuroscience for pseudoscience. Your claim
that "a fetus is scientifically nothing less than what you were after you
yourself were born" (he conveniently deleted this after I replied) shows that you have zero understanding of neither
neuroscience, nor embryology.
Your skin cells contain your DNA, but you do not commit murder
whenever you scratch your hands. Murder only applies to beings with an
experiential welfare, which requires a brain. But semi-literate
"flerfs" will think this is all pseudoscience.
Steve Pace: Again creating pseudo science in a word salad
showing your absolute inability to understand between a life form snd an organ
. The proof of what i stated before. You are completely delusional.
Kenneth Cassar: Again, given that you never read any science
or philosophy books, you think all the new (to you) scientific terms you
encounter are pseudoscience. There is no morally relevant difference between a
brainless life form and an organ. Both experience nothing.
Steve Pace: True to your flat earth beliefs you try to
shift goa posts bringing in morality in the debate . Simpleton thinking process.
Kenneth Cassar: Trust me to think abortion is a moral
issue.
Steve Pace: I’m not new
to any of your word salad. You fail even to understand basic English, basic
biology and basic science.
Go on keep digging flerf
Kenneth Cassar: Give one example to support this absurd claim.
Steve Pace: You experience nothing in your sleep dude .
You keep repeating yourself to convince yourself you have a good argument but
all you have is utter nonsensical garbage.
Kenneth Cassar: "You
experience nothing in your sleep dude ".
And this proves that you are scientifically illiterate.
Steve Pace: You don’t
even have a clue as to what scientifically constitutes a life form. Go on keep
digging more if your flerf science.
Truth i just know what every single flerf argument you will
bring up. All of which scientifically debunked and not even worth reading.
Flerfs , you are just an easy bunch of ignorant bigots.
Kenneth Cassar: Given
that you posted the same comment twice, I will again say the following:
Since you never read any science or philosophy books, you think
all the new (to you) scientific terms you encounter are pseudoscience. There is
no morally relevant difference between a brainless life form and an organ. Both
experience nothing.
Being a "flerf", you obviously are a prime example of
the Dunning-Kruger effect. But tell me, which argument I actually made (not
those you imagine I would make) has been scientifically debunked? Where in all
the scientific literature does it say that prior to having a sufficiently
developed brain, any body will experience anything?
Steve Pace: Btw from your perception im a glober . Be
original at least and stop copying my work.
Kenneth Cassar: How can you see my perception? And what work?
Are you so deluded that you think you are writing a scientific paper here?
Steve Pace: I see through your perception easily. I don’t
expect you to understand how given that you can’t even identify yourself as a
human being.
Kenneth Cassar: I think you need to look up the meaning of
the term "perception" giving that you ridiculously think I wouldn't
identify myself as a human being. Is that part of your seeing through my
"perception"? How could I even be commenting here if I did not
identify myself as a human being? You are seriously confused.
Steve Pace: Flerfs just like you hug trees, would do
anything to protect a tortoise egg deposited on a beach but will do anything to
destroy the humanity of an unborn.
In my books you are thr lowest form of despicable hypocrites.
Kenneth Cassar: I never
hug trees and I protect "tortoise" eggs (they're turtles) not for
their own sake, but ours. Eggs experience nothing, and so can't even care
whether they even exist.
Your ignorance makes you see me as a hypocrite. Oh well.
Steve Pace: Again, the flerf example dunning Krugger
candidate has spoken.
Kenneth Cassar: You can't even spell Dunning-Kruger. Enough
said.
Steve Pace: Btw , you really should try updating your
narrative as science proved that unborn children react to pain during abortion.
Kenneth Cassar: Yes, if
the abortion happens late in the second trimester, the fetus may react to
stimuli such as pain.
You really should pay more attention before shouting victory.
Steve Pace: In your
delusional flat earth opinion a comatose person would not feel pain snd
therefore ‘safe’ to kill .
Sick in my books.
Kenneth Cassar: Although the claim that comatose people don't
feel pain is debatable, let's take it as true for the sake of argument. I never
made the claim that we should kill persons have obviously already acquired an
experiential sense and may recover it later. But the science tells you that
once the brain is completely dead, the machines may be switched off as there would
then be no hope of recovery. Would you call that murder?
Gerry Cowie: Who informs your comments? It is up to us to
look after the vulnerable. You were lucky enough to be allowed to develop a
brain.
Kenneth Cassar: You speak
of the fetus (before it has a sufficiently developed brain) as if
"vulnerable" and "welfare" apply to it. A body that cannot
experience anything is neither vulnerable nor has any welfare. It only has a
potential to become a vulnerable person with interests, but whether to let a
potential "person" become an actual one, should be a matter for the
person who carries the fetus to decide.
"Welfare", by definition,
only applies to experiential beings.
But trust me to think that a person
who has evidently never read neuroscience and philosophy could ever understand
this.
You're free to believe whatever you
want, but until you can prove that a body lacking a developed brain experiences
anything, and therefore has personal interests and a personal welfare, you
should not impose your beliefs on others.
Now, if I go by your past replies,
you are probably going to add that I'm inventing terms to suit an agenda, which
would be understandable given that you obviously have never read the relevant
neuroscience and philosophy literature.
Let me give a thought experiment (not
for your sake - you will probably ignore it or will not understand it mostly
because you don't want to). It involves transplants.
Suppose that in a sufficiently
scientifically advanced year, brain transplants are possible. Now suppose
doctors tell Peter that his body will die in a few days but his brain may be
transplanted into another body (human or machine), and that the technology is
so advanced that after the transplant, the brain will lose none of its memories
and will remain intact and fully functional. The operation is performed
successfully. Does Peter still exist? The answer, most people would agree, is
yes.
Now suppose doctors tell a man named
Paul that his brain will die completely in a few days, but they will be able to
preserve his body and insert in it a mechanical "brain". The
operation is performed successfully. Does Paul still exist in this world? Most
people will probably answer no.
Now what does this tell you about our
brains?
Am I lucky to have been allowed to
develop a brain? Had my mother aborted the fetus that became me before it
developed a brain, there would never have been a "me" know or even
care. But I guess such concepts are beyond your understanding.
What informs my comments are
neuroscience and philosophy. Obviously religion informs yours.
Gerry Cowie: I see you have repeated what you said in a previous thread. I suggest you go back to that thread and see my response, not that it will make you say anything different!
What issues exactly do you have with the defenceless, unborn human, growing in the womb? Do remember that you were allowed to develop to birth.
Looking forward to being marked down by whoever it is that is informing your comments!
Kenneth Cassar: Yes, Mr Cowie. If you post the same slogans elsewhere, you'll get the same response there.
Your questions have already been addressed both here and elsewhere. It's not my fault that you are incapable of comprehending.
What informs my own comments is the relevant academic literature I often read (and I mean books, not lazy articles and videos). And I usually don't "mark down" comments. I reply. So stop playing the victim and grow up.
Joseph Aquilina: I think we should TRUST IN SCIENCE to tell us when LIFE STARTS, and guess what, 96% of Biologists say that LIFE STARTS AT CONCEPTION. (From: The Scientific Consensus on When a Human's Life Begins).
Kenneth Cassar: 100% of neuro-scientists will tell you that prior to the emergence of a sufficiently developed and functioning brain, a body cannot even care whether it exists at all.
Gerry Cowie: It is up to us all to protect the vulnerable so that they can develop. Why do you find that so hard to grasp? You keep repeating the same statement to everybody! Who is informing your comments?
Kenneth Cassar: I have already replied to that. Instead of repeating what you already said, you should try to understand my replies, and then counter my arguments. Experience tells me you are incapable of that.
From Malta Today:
BoJo: Malta's Animal Welfare Act of 2002 indicates a commitment to “protect the life of animals and to prevent and punish acts of ill-treatment in their regard. In particular the state shall protect such animals from undue labour and work practiceswhich are beyond and not consonant with their nature.”
What about the UN-Born Human Babies, would They be getting Legal
Protection?
Or are UN-Born Human Babies less Important than other animals, so that the
Un-Born Human Babies have to Rely On Their Liberal Pro-Choice Loving Mummies
& Daddies Decision!!!
Kenneth Cassar: Fetuses prior to the emergence of a sufficiently developed brain not only cannot feel anything, but literally cannot even care whether they exist or not.
Also, the Animal Welfare Act does not even protect all animals (read it in full), let alone animal fetuses which are afforded no protection at all, for obvious reasons (they cannot suffer).
Your analogy fails abysmally.
BoJo: With the advent of ultrasounds and modern medicine it has been overwhelmingly confirmed that the preborn child in her mother's womb is not just a fetus, but a human being.
Kenneth Cassar: All neuroscientists would tell you that without a sufficiently developed brain, a body (any body, humans are not special in that sense) cannot experience anything let alone care whether it even exists. Prior to developing a brain that gives it awareness and the capacity to experience, a fetus is just a fetus (and definitely not a child). You have a lot of reading to do.
Ultrasounds and "medicine" will not detect mental awareness prior to the advanced development of the brain. In fact, they will show you there is none at that stage.
BoJo: Ultrasounds and medicine already detected mental awareness prior to delivery of the baby.
In fact scientists are creating a startling new picture of
intelligent life in the womb. Among the revelations, here are a 3 of them:-
i) By nine weeks, a developing fetus can hiccup and react to loud noises. By
the end of the second trimester it can hear.
ii) Just as adults do, the fetus experiences the rapid eye movement (REM) sleep
of dreams.
iii) Among other mental feats, the fetus can distinguish between the voice of
Mother and that of a stranger, and respond to a familiar story read to it.
Kenneth Cassar: "Ultrasounds and medicine already detected mental awareness prior to delivery of the baby".
Yes, of course. Read more carefully.
I never said that is not the case. I won't go into the question of
self-awareness, but fetuses gain some awareness around 24 weeks following
conception.
"By nine weeks, a developing
fetus can hiccup and react to loud noises".
The first is a bodily reaction that
does not involve any conscious awareness or intent. The second, as you say,
happens around 24 weeks after conception, when the brain is sufficiently
developed to make it sensitive and at least minimally aware of its
surroundings. This actually supports my case that prior to having a
sufficiently developed brain a fetus does not experience anything and so
abortion is not generally morally problematic until then.
"By the end of the second
trimester it can hear.
ii) Just as adults do, the fetus experiences the rapid eye movement (REM) sleep
of dreams.
iii) Among other mental feats, the fetus can distinguish between the voice of
Mother and that of a stranger, and respond to a familiar story read to
it".
Already replied above - although I
must comment that recognizing a story seems too far-fetched to put it mildly.
BoJo: Since In a previous post you said "Fetuses prior to the emergence of a sufficiently developed brain not only cannot feel anything, but literally cannot even care whether they exist or not."
Science Facts proved you wrong!
Kenneth Cassar: Yes, prior to the passing of about 24 weeks, when the brain is sufficiently developed, fetuses not only cannot feel pleasure or pain, but are not even aware of anything.
The science, far from proving me wrong, actually confirms this.
And in your haste to Google, copy and paste, you actually confirmed all I have
been saying, without even realizing it.
BoJo: So if according to your 'wisdom' an UN-born being can be Killed because:- "fetuses not only cannot feel pleasure or pain, but are not even aware of anything."
If an adult person faints and so he or she "cannot feel
pleasure or pain, but are not even aware of anything."
It would be OK to Kill him!
Kenneth Cassar: It would be a complete waste of time to go into an existential philosophical discussion about personal identity over time with someone who has quite obviously never even seen let alone read the vast academic literature on the subject.
I will just say that there is a significant difference between a body that has not acquired an experiential identity yet (which means that by that stage there would be no one to have any desires) and an actual person who has already attained a personal identity, whom we know that, even though his/her sense perception may be temporarily suspended, would have desired continuing being alive after fainting. It is out of respect for that desire that we do not intentionally harm such a person. Even though that person who faints (being temporarily comatose would be a better example) could not know it if we kill him painlessly, we know that this is not what he/she would have desired. A body that has never attained the capacity of awareness cannot have had any such desires.
Moreover, since most of us have a natural desire to keep on living (at least unless we come to a predicament where life is so unbearable that we might prefer death), our quality of life would go on a serious downturn if we were to fear being killed in our sleep or while temporarily unconscious. Even though we would not know it if someone killed us painlessly while temporarily unconscious, our preference to live on together with a general acceptance that killing us in our sleep is acceptable, would create an intolerable fear and apprehension in all of us. So apart from being wrong because it thwarts desires of beings who have them, permitting the killing of persons while temporarily unconscious would also severely diminish our quality of life. None of this applies in the case of pre-aware fetuses.
Prior to becoming an experiential being with interests and desires, a body does not have any preferences since it would never have existed as an experiential person.
And before you reply that my reasoning would permit the killing of fetuses inside women who do not wish to terminate the pregnancy, no, it does not, not because the pre-aware fetus is harmed (it cannot be harmed yet), but because the desires and interests of the woman who wishes to bring the pregnancy to term would be forcibly and intentionally violated.
BoJo: The beauty and advantage of being born in the human body, is that the human body is equipped with a brain with which we can hopefully realize our true nature. Viz. the realization that we are not the body but the In-dwellers of the body, be it of the Unborn or the Born . Hence,we should not deprive any human being be it a yet to be Born or the already Born.
Kenneth Cassar: So many words just to tell us you believe in
souls waiting to be embodied, for that which does not yet exist cannot be deprived. Until you prove souls exist, you shouldn't impose your religion on
anyone. An in any case, if you believe in heaven, you must also believe that
abortion benefits fetuses. A quick route to eternal bliss - what more should
one desire?
BoJo: One needs not believe in any religion, there is a Basic law of Science that says "Nothing Comes Of Nothing".
So, Nothing comes into being without something causing or compelling it.
That supports the idea that the universe must have had a creator or a maker or source or origin.
Kenneth Cassar: In the case of the fetus, the persons copulating would have created it.
As for the claim that "nothing comes from nothing", the idea that the universe had a "creator" (you would still have to explain how the creator was created if nothing comes from nothing, or prove that "he" is a conscious personal God), would be no more plausible than that matter has always existed in some form or other. Disprove either and then we'll talk.
But in any case, you still would have not given any evidence that souls exist. Nor have you addressed my claim that if that were the case, and souls exist, abortion would benefit the fetus since it would "send its soul" to "eternal bliss" decades ahead of its time.
You really need to start reading some philosophy.
BoJo: Since you are an atheist you would love the:- Atheists' Magical Myth
Son: Dad, do you believe in magic?
Father: No but Theists do believe in it!
Son: Explain to me, dad.
Father: They believe this universe was magically created by a Magical person in the heavens, which is a myth.
Son: Ok dad, this is clear to me, we atheists believe magic happens without a magician.
Kenneth Cassar: You are so good at misrepresenting those you consider your opponents. Here's how it would actually go:
Son: Do you believe in God?
Father: No, son, because there's no compelling evidence to support that belief.
Son: So did matter always exist or was it created by a personal or impersonal God?
Father: Unlike theists, I'll be honest and say "we don't know yet".
Now how about getting back on topic if you have anything of substance to say?
You have only two options: If souls exist, show me the evidence, and how it would not benefit them to go to heaven sooner than later; if souls do not exist, explain how a body lacking a sufficiently developed brain that gives it any awareness of anything may have interests and desires.
BoJo: Watch The Day I Died BBC documentary, it attempts to demonstrate
scientific evidence for near-death-experiences and explores what might behappening to the people who have these life-changing events.
They leave the most interesting case for the end. The girl who had been blind from birth and during her NDE she found she could see for the first time.
The title itself exposes the sensationalism of such "documentaries". People who experience "near-death" experiences do not experience death. So I might as well watch some "Ghost hunters documentaries".
Near-death experiences are no evidence for souls. You still have all the work ahead of you. Might as well get back on topic. So how about explaining how an early fetus is harmed by abortion when the science says that early fetuses do not experience anything and your own beliefs tell you that abortion sends fetuses early to eternal bliss? Be honest and answer this.
BoJo: Watch that documentary and then try to justify your Atheistic Delusions by explaining to your Atheistic self how a blind girl who had been blind from birth, and during her NDE she found she could see for the first time; for the first time in her life she saw people and light, having never seen light (or anything for that matter) before. Goodbye
Now how about being intellectually honest and address this on-topic point:
Explain how an early fetus is harmed by abortion when the science shows that early fetuses do not experience anything and your own beliefs tell you that abortion sends fetuses early to eternal bliss?
Are you too cowardly or dishonest to answer this question?
BoJo: I thought I said goodbye to you this morning when I flushed the toilet.
Kenneth Cassar: Oh, such intellect. I'm sure the contents of your toilet were much impressed before you flushed them. After all, they had a close-up view of where your words are coming from.
So you are too much of a dishonest coward to take the challenge? Let me post it again:
Explain how an early fetus is harmed by abortion when the science shows that early fetuses do not experience anything and your own beliefs tell you that abortion sends fetuses early to eternal bliss?
Gerry Cowie: It is up to us to care, Mr Cassar. Never forget the humanity of the unborn, at whichever stage they have reached. The vulnerable have always needed others to look after their welfare. Why do you not think this should include the unborn? Who is informing your comments?
Kenneth Cassar: You speak of the fetus (before it has a sufficiently developed brain) as if "vulnerable" and "welfare" apply to it. A body that cannot experience anything is neither vulnerable nor has any welfare. It only has a potential to become a vulnerable person with interests, but whether to let a potential "person" become an actual one, should be a matter for the person who carries the fetus to decide.
"Welfare", by definition,
only applies to experiential beings.
But trust me to think that a person
who has evidently never read neuroscience and philosophy could ever understand
this.
You're free to believe whatever you
want, but until you can prove that a body lacking a developed brain experiences
anything, and therefore has personal interests and a personal welfare, you
should not impose your beliefs on others.
Now, if I go by your past replies,
you are probably going to add that I'm inventing terms to suit an agenda, which
would be understandable given that you obviously have never read the relevant
neuroscience and philosophy literature.
Let me give a thought experiment (not
for your sake - you will probably ignore it or will not understand it mostly
because you don't want to). It involves transplants.
Suppose that in a sufficiently
scientifically advanced age, brain transplants are possible. Now suppose
doctors tell Peter that his body will die in a few days but his brain may be
transplanted into another body (human or machine), and that the technology is
so advanced that after the transplant, the brain will lose none of its memories
and will remain intact and fully functional. The operation is performed
successfully. Does Peter still exist? The answer, most people would agree, is
yes.
Now suppose doctors tell a man named
Paul that his brain will die completely in a few days, but they will be able to
preserve his body and insert in it a mechanical "brain". The
operation is performed successfully. Does Paul still exist in this world? Most
people will probably answer no.
Now what does this tell you about our
brains?
Jerry Cowie: You choose quite deliberately to ignore what I said and you continued with your nonsense.
I urge you to choose life, and to defend and support those in the womb so that they may grow to maturity as you yourself have done, rather then dehumanise them, which is a trait so typical of the pro-abortion lobby! nothing more, nothing less! Good day to you.
Kenneth Cassar: I give your slogans a 346 word response and you say I am deliberately ignoring what you said. Unbelievable.
Is it my fault that you are incapable of comprehending?
Comments
Post a Comment