Zone1 A Question For Pro-Choicers

[alang1216]

I couldn't be happier for you to believe that even though it is 100% incorrect. Your flawed logic astounds me. If you think changing your mind isn't proof that your consciousness is evolving and your logic is flawed, I'm afraid I will never be able to convince you otherwise.

I'm not anti-semantic but you use a science term in a non-science context. My logic is fine, it is your terminology that is flawed

 

[MizMolly]

Adoption being an option is a Sales Speech constantly coming from the Church.

And the reality is that many women simply DO NOT want go though a pregnancy, and they have EVERY RIGHT not to want to.

And as posted by another poster, there are sometimes complications and the anti abortion people do not seem to care at all about whether it affects the life of the pregnant woman or not. They want the babies to be born at any cost, whether it costs the woman's health or even her life.

Women are not going to other States, or Mexico to have an abortion, including very young children, because they want to, because it is THEIR RIGHT to choose the road they wish to travel.

Rights. That is what being pro abortion is.
Acknowledging that many women, all women, have the RIGHT to CHOOSE how they want to live their lives, especially if it is going to affect their health or if it is going to be a matter or life or death TO the woman who is pregnant.


You know nothing about any of these women. When you start caring about their individual struggles.......well........

I guess it’s a struggle to keep your pants on.

 

[forkup]

You don't believe the evolution of your consciousness makes your life better or the lives of others better too?

Again... you have a very narrow view of evolution if you limit it to biological evolution.

I never really got that. Does having a conscious make life better I mean?

A lion doesn't think in terms of having a good life but I would say it's perfectly content of it has a pride and prey. A human even a human that (as most people do) enjoy a standard of living unmatched in history is often unhappy.

The only measurable undisputed standard of a " better life" thanks to our consciousness is that we live longer as a species then we would naturally do, because of our ability to understand the world on an intellectual level.

With it came an ability to destroy our environment and even ourselves if the mood strikes us. Hardly a good development.

 

[ding]

I'm not anti-semantic but you use a science term in a non-science context. My logic is fine, it is your terminology that is flawed

When you change your mind your consciousness is literally evolving as your thoughts are evolving. So when you make the statement that consciousness doesn't evolve because of some other argument your logic is flawed because your belief does not satisfy all conditions; only the limited and narrow condition which established your logic. Which has obviously been proven wrong.

 

[ding]

I never really got that. Does having a conscious make life better I mean?

A lion doesn't think in terms of having a good life but I would say it's perfectly content of it has a pride and prey. A human even a human that (as most people do) enjoy a standard of living unmatched in history is often unhappy.

The only measurable undisputed standard of a " better life" thanks to our consciousness is that we live longer as a species then we would naturally do, because of our ability to understand the world on an intellectual level.

With it came an ability to destroy our environment and even ourselves if the mood strikes us. Hardly a good development.

I think it does. Music, art, poetry, science, math, logic, truth, knowledge, love, etc...

 

[ding]

With it came an ability to destroy our environment and even ourselves if the mood strikes us. Hardly a good development.

That's a view of only the negative. You need to see the whole picture to do a proper accounting, right? You need to weigh the good and the bad, right?

 

[forkup]

I think it does. Music, art, poetry, science, math, logic, truth, knowledge, love, etc...

But is having all that a better life than a lion sunbathing with it's pride after eating a gazelle?

All the things you name are function of intellect (with the exception of love maybe.) How do any of them though amount to "a better life?" All I see is extra expectations in life to consider it better.

I'm not trying to be difficult but purely logically speaking it seems that your definition of a "better life" is simply a list of requirements, often unattainable requirements to be happy as a human.

 

[ding]

alang1216

Science is grounded in consciousness.

The physical world is entirely abstract and without ‘actuality’ apart from its linkage to consciousness. It is physicists who have expressed most clearly this pervasive relationship between mind and matter, and indeed at times the primacy of mind. Arthur Eddington wrote, “the stuff of the world is mind‑stuff. The mind‑stuff is not spread in space and time." Von Weizsacker stated what he called his “Identity Hypothesis; that consciousness and matter are different aspects of the same reality. In 1952 Wolfgang Pauli said, "the only acceptable point of view appears to be the one that recognizes both sides of reality -- the quantitative and the qualitative, the physical and the psychical -- as compatible with each other, and can embrace them simultaneously . . . It would be most satisfactory of all if physis and psyche (i.e., matter and mind) could be seen as complementary aspects of the same reality." If I say, with Eddington, “the stuff of the world is mind‑stuff,” that has a metaphysical ring. But if I say that ultimate reality is expressed in the solutions of the equations of quantum mechanics, quantum electrodynamics, and quantum field theory -- that sounds like good, modern physics. Yet what are those equations, indeed what is mathematics, but mind‑stuff? -- virtually the ultimate in mind‑stuff and for that reason deeply mysterious. Mind, rather than being a late development in the evolution of organisms, had existed always: that this is a life‑breeding universe because the constant presence of mind made it so.

George Wald: Life and Mind in the Universe

 

[ding]

But is having all that a better life than a lion sunbathing with it's pride after eating a gazelle?

All the things you name are function of intellect (with the exception of love maybe.) How do any of them though amount to "a better life?" All I see is extra expectations in life to consider it better.

I'm not trying to be difficult but purely logically speaking it seems that your definition of a "better life" is simply a list of requirements, often unattainable requirements to be happy as a human.

You aren't a lion. And if you can't see how all the things I mentioned make your life better - which is only a small subset of the total - I'm afraid I will never be able to convince you nor would I want to either.

It's not my job to make you have a balanced view. It's only my job to point out your view is unbalanced.

 

[forkup]

That's a view of only the negative. You need to see the whole picture to do a proper accounting, right? You need to weigh the good and the bad, right?

Sure. I'm simply not sure there is a good.

I consider myself a reasonable intelligent human being. When I was young I thought that that made me superior to those human beings that didn't have my innate intelligence. Luckily as I grew older I realized that the only thing it did was make me intelligent, not superior because that person I considered less intelligent likely had skills that I didn't have.

I might think as a human I'm the ultimate creature of evolution. The truth is as a species we hardly have started. There are species that are faster, stronger, more survivable, longer lived, etc.,etc. The only thing we have unique to ourselves is our intelligence and the ability to adjust our environment to suit us. I'm doubtful that is objectively better.

 

[ding]

Sure. I'm simply not sure there is a good.

I consider myself a reasonable intelligent human being. When I was young I thought that that made me superior to those human beings that didn't have my innate intelligence. Luckily as I grew older I realized that the only thing it did was make me intelligent not superior because that person I considered less intelligent likely had skills that I didn't have.

I might think as a human I'm the ultimate creature of evolution. The truth is as a species we hardly have started. There are species that are faster, stronger, more survivable, longer lived, etc.,etc. The only thing we have unique to ourselves is our intelligence and the ability to adjust our environment to suit us. I'm doubtful that is objectively better.

1. Everything is good because good is the extant attribute of existence. Bad is the negation of the extant attribute of existence. As in bad is the absence of good. Good isn't the absence of bad.

2. You are superior to no one. Neither am I. You aren't special. I'm not special. The best any of us can ever hope for is to "be" perfect which means to exist perfectly which doesn't mean doing perfect things.

3. The human mind is the most complex thing - that we are aware of - created by the evolution of space and time.

4. The measure of "a better life" isn't comparing us to something else. It is comparing us to how we are to what we were before. In that regard, the evolution of consciousness is the deciding factor. It is not always a straight line. But until we learn (i.e. consciousness evolves) we will keep repeating our mistakes until we do. alang1216 , this is an example of good coming from bad and our consciousness evolving.

 

[alang1216]

I don't believe I have. If I had you would have been able to actually explain how instead of just issuing an unsupported blanket denial.

Please tell me what part I got wrong? Please tell me what I have posted that isn't supported by science?

You can't. You can only say I am wrong. And you are only saying that because it offends your sensibilities. You don't have a good reason to disagree with anything I have written.

You first sentence was fine, after that not so much. The are no higher or lower states in the science of evolution. Complexity is not a goal of evolution. You are misusing the science to support a predetermined result. Not science.

 

[alang1216]

When you change your mind your consciousness is literally evolving as your thoughts are evolving. So when you make the statement that consciousness doesn't evolve because of some other argument your logic is flawed because your belief does not satisfy all conditions; only the limited and narrow condition which established your logic. Which has obviously been proven wrong.

You have proven nothing. Show me a science article that supports your assertion of evolving consciousness. Whatever that is?

 

[ding]

You first sentence was fine, after that not so much. The are no higher or lower states in the science of evolution. Complexity is not a goal of evolution. You are misusing the science to support a predetermined result. Not science.

It's all fine as evidenced by your lack of reasoning against it other than you say so. Raise your game.

 

[ding]

You have proven nothing. Show me a science article that supports your assertion of evolving consciousness. Whatever that is?

Sure I did. All I needed to prove it was you changing your mind about anything.

 

[alang1216]

alang1216

Science is grounded in consciousness.

The physical world is entirely abstract and without ‘actuality’ apart from its linkage to consciousness. It is physicists who have expressed most clearly this pervasive relationship between mind and matter, and indeed at times the primacy of mind. Arthur Eddington wrote, “the stuff of the world is mind‑stuff. The mind‑stuff is not spread in space and time." Von Weizsacker stated what he called his “Identity Hypothesis; that consciousness and matter are different aspects of the same reality. In 1952 Wolfgang Pauli said, "the only acceptable point of view appears to be the one that recognizes both sides of reality -- the quantitative and the qualitative, the physical and the psychical -- as compatible with each other, and can embrace them simultaneously . . . It would be most satisfactory of all if physis and psyche (i.e., matter and mind) could be seen as complementary aspects of the same reality." If I say, with Eddington, “the stuff of the world is mind‑stuff,” that has a metaphysical ring. But if I say that ultimate reality is expressed in the solutions of the equations of quantum mechanics, quantum electrodynamics, and quantum field theory -- that sounds like good, modern physics. Yet what are those equations, indeed what is mathematics, but mind‑stuff? -- virtually the ultimate in mind‑stuff and for that reason deeply mysterious. Mind, rather than being a late development in the evolution of organisms, had existed always: that this is a life‑breeding universe because the constant presence of mind made it so.

George Wald: Life and Mind in the Universe

And we're living in the Matrix? Wald is certainly an authority on vision but he claimed, in 1970, that the world would end in 30 years.

 

[alang1216]

It's all fine as evidenced by your lack of reasoning against it other than you say so. Raise your game.

No need. You need to support your assertions with more.

 

[initforme]

Why do no pro lifers advocate NOT having kids and NOT EVER getting pregnant? To oppose those IS IMMORAL.

 

[ding]

No need. You need to support your assertions with more.

Why? You haven't refuted the ones I gave.

 

[ding]

And we're living in the Matrix?

Possibly. Everything is information. Right down to the sub atomic particles. e=mc^2.