When do you start to exist?

[Eviscero]

I wouldn't say there's any proof as to whether a fetus is self-aware or not. If we use the definition conscious knowledge of one's own character, feelings, motives, and desires., they have the feelings of their senses. I'd argue that they know they're separate from the environment around them but we don't know if they do or not. Either way, if we argue from the point of conscioussness, don't you agree that it is wrong to kill a consciouss human being? Even if it is a fetus?

Also, since experiences in the womb affect how you become later in life, aren't those experiences part of you?

- - - Updated - - -


No, that is faulty logic. Person A doesn't exist. Just as you said in your first sentence they do not exist yet - therefore they do not exist "in another form". There are parts that could potentially become Person A, but Person A does not exist yet. Just because you have atoms that will become something, doesn't mean they are what they will become, but in another form. They are what they are until they become what they become. Then what they become is built by the atoms, but they're not the same.

It is not 'faulty logic.' I am defining a thing to exist if it's constitute parts exist. That's my definition. You seem to think an apple is no longer an apple once you take a bite.

As to your arguments, they all rely on a notionof what 'you' are but never define it, so all of your arguments are rather circular.

1) circular
2) starting to approach a definition - 'you' exist once 'you' can 'experience things', but this is stillpoorly defined since it relies on a notion of 'you' without defining it.
3) agreed, we have different words for the same thing to more precisely characterize it / it's condition. But I don't see how this even comes close to being relevant to definition of existence.
4) debatable and also not a definition of existence more a definition of life. So are you saying 'you' are your 2 chromosomes that encode a person?
5) opinion, totally irrelevant.
6) confused. are you agreeing with them or not? you're also claiming here that you aren't your thoughts or your cells. So you still don't have a definition of what you are.

[Birgwow]

Lots of non-sentient animals recognize themselves in a mirror.

The very next line after the one you quoted says, "Of course, the results of the mirror test are not clear cut. Just because the toddler recognizes themselves in the mirror doesn't mean they have a mental concept of themselves." You should have kept reading.

? that only suggests that further research is needed to get a definite answer. And what do you mean by "Lots of non-sentient animals recognize themselves in a mirror."? What non-sentient animals do that?

If you don't want an abortion, don't get one. Thankfully no one forces you to.

Please, atleast read the OP before you post. This has nothing to do with abortion.

[Dome Fossil]

? that only suggests that further research is needed to get a definite answer. And what do you mean by "Lots of non-sentient animals recognize themselves in a mirror."? What non-sentient animals do that?.

Dolphins, elephants, magpies, and some great apes know they're looking at themselves in the mirror.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...eness-science/

EDIT: The wrong thing got quoted.

[Birgwow]

It is not 'faulty logic.' I am defining a thing to exist if it's constitute parts exist. That's my definition. You seem to think an apple is no longer an apple once you take a bite.

As to your arguments, they all rely on a notionof what 'you' are but never define it, so all of your arguments are rather circular.

1) circular
2) starting to approach a definition - 'you' exist once 'you' can 'experience things', but this is stillpoorly defined since it relies on a notion of 'you' without defining it.
3) agreed, we have different words for the same thing to more precisely characterize it / it's condition. But I don't see how this even comes close to being relevant to definition of existence.
4) debatable and also not a definition of existence more a definition of life. So are you saying 'you' are your 2 chromosomes that encode a person?
5) opinion, totally irrelevant.
6) confused. are you agreeing with them or not? you're also claiming here that you aren't your thoughts or your cells. So you still don't have a definition of what you are.

That is not at all the same thing. An apple is still an apple with a bite taken out of it. It would just be an apple with a bite taken out of it. You're saying an apple exists because the water and minerals exist. That's not the apple existing, that's the minerals and water existing.

And what are you even responding to with that list?

- - - Updated - - -

Dolphins, elephants, magpies, and some great apes know they're looking at themselves in the mirror.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...eness-science/

EDIT: The wrong thing got quoted.

Those are all sentient animals..

[Musta]

When theres cerebral activity.

[Bollocks]

You need to be independent to exist?

So retarded people dependent on their parents never technically exist?

- - - Updated - - -

You need to comprehend existence to exist?

So if I go unconscious, do I not exist unless I wake up?

Ok, you are making it sound complicated. You exist regardless of your consciousness. Your body is still there, from that point onwards it depends of wheater or not you are a religious person or believe there is something more than the physical plane. If you don't then you exist, as the physical part of you is still there

[Eviscero]

That is not at all the same thing. An apple is still an apple with a bite taken out of it. It would just be an apple with a bite taken out of it. You're saying an apple exists because the water and minerals exist. That's not the apple existing, that's the minerals and water existing.

And what are you even responding to with that list?

Your 6 'arguments.' Also, you seem to be confusing existence of something with existence of a noun. By your logic the water doesn't exist, because it's made of Hydrogen and Oxygen, which don't exist because they're made of protons and electrons and neutrons, etc.

An apple is just a word for a collection of particles that arrange themselves in a way which has characteristics that we recognize as an apple. You're hung up on some language-based definition of existence which is even more silly than the six arguments I tore apart earlier. Until you give an actual definition of what 'you' are, we can't discuss this any further.

[Dome Fossil]

Those are all sentient animals..

You think Magpies are sentient beings? We're clearly operating on two entirely different definitions of sentient here, then. I define it as something with self-awareness capable of forming memories and experiencing a reality. So, we may have to just agree to disagree here.

[Bollocks]

You think Magpies are sentient beings? We're clearly operating on two entirely different definitions of sentient here, then. I define it as something with self-awareness capable of forming memories and experiencing a reality. So, we may have to just agree to disagree here.

Recognizing one self is a sign of self awarness. So yeah they technically qualify as sentient beings. Birds as well can qualify as sentient beings recent discovers has shown that a crow is capable of forming memories.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/26/science/26crow.html

[Fencers]

Its not that hard, you exist as a living being by that moment. By that moment however you cannot prove your existence, but your existence is still there regardless of wheather you think or not.

But am I me as defined by the OP?

- - - Updated - - -

I do not say that. I say that you are you before and after you can recall your experiences.

I am having trouble with "you" in this context.

- - - Updated - - -

Define "exist."

Within what kind of mode?

[Thresh1]

If you don't want an abortion, don't get one. Thankfully no one forces you to.

If you don't want a slave, don't get one. Thankfully no one forces you to.

Do you see how that argument assumes the unborn are not valuable human beings to begin with?

On the OP, there is no consistent, objective distinction between "person" and "human being."

- - - Updated - - -

I think you're confusing the terms "exist", "a bunch of cells glopped together trying to form another human" and "a human".

A sperm is not a human, an egg is not a human. They can make a human, but they are not human.

I could do anecdotal and say that CO2, water and flavored syrup are all components of soda, but are not individually or without proper mixture and combination "a soda".

So really we need to define the point at which a group of cells is considered a human, and no that answer is not as simple as "at conception."

It is actually that simple. The zygote is a human, as defined by science. This is basic biology.

[Wildtree]

Cogito ergo sum

[Thresh1]

You exist when you add value in the life of any other being.

Nuff said.

So, babies and homeless people don't exist? What about alzheimers? What about people trapped in a sex dungeon, that aren't even known to be alive to the general public? Adding value (whatever that means) has nothing to do with existing...

[Valech]

"If you kill a pregnant woman it should count as a double murder, depending on how far the woman is in the pregnancy. The law is on their side but the law isn't always right.
There are time limits on abortions for a reason, because we all agree that killing a fetus that is developed enough is wrong. In my opinion this is because it's a human being."

Can´t dismiss law as flawed and then use law as indicator in the next point.

[DeadlyAccuracy]

You start to exist when you begin thinking for yourself, are self aware, as well as aware of the things around you. By this definition some people never get to truly exist.

Yes, yes, I know the thread is about biology and abortion and what not.

[Thresh1]

Cogito ergo sum

They already addressed this. Thinking justifies your existence, but it doesn't necessarily mark when you begin to exist.

[Flurryfang]

It is really a personnal thing. I think that we all have different opnions about when we first lived, and when we were just some cells from our mother clumbed together in a bunch of flesh. I think, that it is something, which we can't get a definitive answer to, since people use different rules to determined life. You have to ask questions like being aware, being able to live on your own, being human, having thoughts, having needs and etc... Some people would even say, that you don't really exists before your memory gets aware, so kids up to 3-4 years old. It is an age old question, that we will never get a clear answer to.

Personally, i think that life starts when the kids exists the mothers womb. This opinion comes from, that i think that your life starts when your umbrilical cord is cut and you start living and breathing on your own. Undtil then, you have just been a part of your mother and a form of parasite, not ment in any negative way. If the mother dies, the child dies aswell. That is pretty much, where i get my logik from in this area.

[Icoblablubb]

usually after my first fap marathon thats when i realize *i exist* :O

[Dezerte]

If you define the "you" as the collection of past experiences & memories, then the "you" does not exist until 3-4 years old of age.

[Wildtree]

They already addressed this. Thinking justifies your existence, but it doesn't necessarily mark when you begin to exist.

To me it does.
Before you can't think, you're merely no different than a veggie.