No, an embryo could easily die in the womb anyway
Don't bring this up please, it's moot. Your argument can still be valid without it, so don't throw in stuff that doesn't add. This is like saying murder is okay b/c people die of natural causes anyway.
but until it has memories it is not a person. So it is still a potential person right up until it starts gaining memories.
That is possible. Then again, what do they have to remember? Experiences? They are learning throughout their whole development, so they are constantly "remembering" things, in a sense.
The sperm and the egg are just a little further back in development.
Yes... and just a little further back than that is nonexistence. Again, stop throwing in arguments that are irrelevant.
But if you will accept it on r*** then why not on other things.
Because, as I said, it's a COMPROMISE. A compromise with people who view extreme cases such as r*** as more cause for legal abortions than other situations. As I said, sadly I'd honestly prefer no legal abortions at all... AND chemical castration of convicted rapists...
And couldn't someone claim they were *****?
They could, and that is an issue. But, then again, someone could get an illegal abortion in any case, so I don't think we should trouble ourselves with that in the abortion debate. That IS an issue with the whole chemical castration thing, and so THAT would only be used with those who are unequivocally guilty of the most heinous crimes.
How could an outerworld being be conscious then? Your theory needs a base but it has none as your base would have to be conscious and anything conscious needs another conscious base.
Wrong. I said that a free-will consciousness in a PHYSICAL WORLD BUILT UPON RULES needs an external base, or else it couldn't exist. The thing about ethereal is that ANYTHING is possible outside of our universe, so there's no reason why a free-will consciousness couldn't "exist" there.
By this happiness would most definitely be part of the id.
I don't see the connection. I think you are failing to make a distinction between happiness and pleasure.
Another thing to keep in mind about consciousness and free will, Benjamin Libet had conducted a study indicating that conscious action originates first in the subconsciousness. So while your decision might seem spontaneous, your brain is already actively preparing you to preform the action before you even know you will.
That study is rather interesting, although based on its description I noticed a slight problem. It said that people timed the point when they wanted to move (W) by having them use a revolving clock and noting the point at which they wanted to move. But what most people would tend to do with clocks is to want to wait for it to be perfectly on a second-mark or directly vertical or in some other precise position before acting. So they could've ended-up waiting for that in preparation for their action, which would trigger preceding brain activity.
[url]http://brain.oxfordjournals.org/content/106/3/623[/url]
As I said, I believe emotions originating in the mind can affect the brain. So the reactions there aren't in hindrance at all to my theory. Also, I found it interesting that happiness had a general reaction as-opposed-to a targeted one... to me that supports the idea that it doesn't really originate from a portion of the brain.
So far I have seen that His words are different: "For this is the will of my Father, that every one who sees the Son and believes in him should have eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day." Jn 6:40, and more. He did only say Hell about evildoers. If you have objections, I'd like you cite or link a verse that you object. The Gospel is pretty big to do a search on the fly.
It took some searching, but I sort-of found one: Beginning of Matthew 22. It's a metaphor, God's kingdom is like a banquet. He first invited the good, but they didn't come. He then invited everyone, and some still ignored (non-Christians) and others (sinners) did worse and killed the kings servants who were telling of the inviting. He murdered them (the sinners; ie. sent them to Hell) and then invited everyone else again.
Everyone came "But when the king came in to see the guests, he noticed a man there who was not wearing wedding clothes [ie. had not acknowledge God's invitation... again, nonbelievers]. 'Friend,' he asked, 'how did you get in here without wedding clothes?' The man was speechless. Then the king told the attendants, 'Tie him hand and foot, and throw him outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.' For many are invited, but few are chosen."
To me, this seems to state that there is a horrible fate awaiting nonbelievers, and that just seems wrong :/
Each one of these combinations constituting a mind are the result of neural processes
All of your premises up till here were correct MGW. The mind is, essentially, where your conscious thought "takes place". Then, out of nowhere, you just said "this comes from neural processes"...what? How is that a proof? That's the whole debate.
And again, you have to admit, to state that a consciousness arises from chemicals and electrons aligned in a certain way DOES sound like an incredibly arbitrary definition. You, yet again, need more substance. Though it's understandable if you're not feeling well.
Hope you feel better, MGW
Also:
are you referring to consciousness as being awake or are you referring to sentience? Because it seems like you are misusing the word.
Consciousness - n. The fact of awareness by the mind of itself and the world
If that's not the definition of sentience, then I am sorely confused. Although sentience
is the more precise term. Okay, I'll use sentience for the duration of my posts
