My Kidney Challenge

[Kylie]

Kylie, it's difficult for me to understand how you can both claim ignorance and certainty of your position. You both claim that you know that it's not a person and that you don't know when it becomes a person... but then you are certain-enough to kill it. If you don't understand this it as to why it is a problem it will be difficult for me to explain to you.

Like I've said many times, I can't tell you the exact time when it happens because it is not a thing that happens at one particular time. It is a process, not a single event.

Get up before dawn tomorrow, while it's still dark. Wait until the sun is up. Can you tell me what time, to the second, it will be when it stops being dark and starts being light? Of course not, because it doesn't get light like when you turn on a light switch. It is a gradual thing that doesn't all happen at the same time.

A developing fetus is like that.

Seriously, I hope you get it now, because I don't know how to make it any clearer.

 

[Kylie]

Ok. I see how the semantic game works here. It's only a baby when it can't survive. But when it can and you abort it, then it's a fetus.

Got it!

Are you deliberately trying to miss my point?

 

[Holoman]

And how can I make it any clearer?

THERE IS NO ONE SINGLE POINT IN TIME WHEN IT STOPS BEING A CLUMP OF CELLS AND STARTS BEING A CHILD.

If something is a clump of cells at time t0, and a child at time t1, then there must necessarily be a time between t0 and t1 where it becomes a child. Your assertion is incoherent.

 

[Nithavela]

If something is a clump of cells at time t0, and a child at time t1, then there must necessarily be a time between t0 and t1 where it becomes a child. Your assertion is incoherent.

Imagine a heap of grains. Now imagine taking a grain from it. And another one, and repeat it until you are satisfied that what you have is no longer a heap.

The moment when this happens is your subjective threshold.

What you need to understand is that there is no objective moment when a heap is no longer a heap, but a spectrum of subjective viewpoints.

The problem is that you're looking for the wrong answer. You are looking for a objective answer, but we needs to be reached is a consensus on what society should deem the correct subjective answer.

 

[devolved]

Get up before dawn tomorrow, while it's still dark. Wait until the sun is up. Can you tell me what time, to the second, it will be when it stops being dark and starts being light? Of course not, because it doesn't get light like when you turn on a light switch. It is a gradual thing that doesn't all happen at the same time

I can actually answer this from my perspective as a cinematographer. "Light" and "Dark" are relative terms when it comes to our perception, or "exposure". There's something that we can agree to be "absolute dark", or 0 LUX when measured by a light-meter device. Every progressive gradation of "light" would then be a "non-zero LUX" measurement. Hence we have an absolute darkness, and progressively brighter settings. The difference between night time and day time is around 30,000 lux.

You can read up on it here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lux

When you ask me as to when it stops being dark and starts being light during the sunrise phase, I'll have to ask you as to what you consider to be "light". Is it the full sunrise at "400 lux"? Well, then it's fairly straightforward. I'll pull out a lightmeter and a watch and clock the exact time when we hit "400 lux" during the sunrise phase.

Your issue here is with your refusal to identify as to when you would consider someone a person on a certain continuum, because it allows you to evade this question all together.

So, let's begin with a very simple scenario. Would you consider a newborn a person?

 

[devolved]

The problem is that you're looking for the wrong answer. You are looking for a objective answer, but we needs to be reached is a consensus on what society should deem the correct subjective answer.

Sure, it's difficult with vague entities. Let's say that we agree that you are not sure.

Given your subjective uncertainty, if I put a box in the middle of a room and say "There may be a child in there, but per my subjective opinion there's not" would you put a sword through that box?

I think what bothers me the most about the "pro choice" crowd is that argument from ignorance... if we don't know that it's a person, then it's safe to assume that it's not.

 

[Nithavela]

Given your subjective uncertainty, if I put a box in the middle of a room and say "There may be a child in there, but per my subjective opinion there's not" would you put a sword through that box?

Depends. What are the given odds and what have I to gain, or to loose if I refuse? Do I get immunity if a child is in there and I kill it, or am I getting shipped off to jail?

 

[devolved]

Depends. What are the given odds and what have I to gain, or to loose if I refuse? Do I get immunity if a child is in there and I kill it, or am I getting shipped off to jail?

Well, let's keep it somewhat analogous with the following game and rewards/punishments

1) If there is a child in the box and you did not ram a sword through it, then you have to adopt it and take care of it.

2) If you ram through the box and it turned out to be a child, then you wouldn't be punished at all. You get to pull out a trash bag and throw it in the garbage. No legal punishment for it, but you would get to live your life knowing that you've killed a child.

3) If you ram through the box and there is no child in it, obviously, no punishment either.

Would you ram a sword through the box?

 

[devolved]

Are you deliberately trying to miss my point?

It's not hard to miss your point, since you are refusing to make one .

Is 2 year old a person? A 1 year old? A 6 month old? A 1 month old? A 1 Day old? A 1 minute old? A 9 month fetus? A 6 month fetus? A 3 month fetus? A 1 month fetus? A Zygote?

So, given a chunked "gradient" above, where would you point your subjective view as to when a fetus is a person and when it's not in the previously defined chunks?

It shouldn't be hard to say, for example : I think that 2 year old is a person, or a 1 minute old, or 9 month fetus is a person, but 6 months and younger ... not sure.

You are not really doing any of that, clearly because it does pose a moral problem of continuum given your analogy.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

And nobody should be treated like that, should they?

I don’t believe it was me that asked if I had the right to force you to do anything, much less give up a bodily part. In fact since I equated such to slavery, my answer is self contained.

I wholeheartedly support freedom of choice. Including the freedom for you to say anything or believe anything.

But then I don’t force people to believe only one world view while they are growing up. So perhaps I am able to make that distinction.

But if you force someone to do anything, they are slaves, including forcing them to study only one world view....

 

[devolved]

But if you force someone to do anything, they are slaves, including forcing them to study only one world view....

I disagree. I think that as humanity in general we follow a certain trajectory of previously established cultural structures. So, your parents forced plenty on you, so are your teachers, so are your peers, so is the government and law enforcement.

Forcing a worldview becomes wrong if it's not adequately justified, but then again, we'd have to collectively agree as to what is "justified use of force" and what is not.

Clearly, you would agree that forcing a kid to stay after school, writing "Spitting at other people is wrong" 200 times, is a justified use of "forcing a worldview", right?

Thus, this issue is more nuanced than "Forcing someone to do anything is slavery"

 

[ToddNotTodd]

It shouldn't be hard to say, for example : I think that 2 year old is a person, or a 1 minute old, or 9 month fetus is a person, but 6 months and younger ... not sure.

The point is that during the first trimester, when the vast number of abortions occur, the pro choice person would likely say, "nope, definitely not a person.". Not being able to identify a specific point in time when it is a person isn't necessary.

 

[devolved]

The point is that during the first trimester, when the vast number of abortions occur, the pro choice person would likely say, "nope, definitely not a person.". Not being able to identify a specific point in time when it is a person isn't necessary.

Sure, I'm aware of that. I'm trying to figure out some point of agreement, no matter how small it is. Even in case of 9% of the total.

So, can we agree that second trimester abortions are morally questionable, in context of fetus would actually being closer to what we would consider a person?

 

[PreviouslySeeking...]

Personhood isn't really a question of value to many pro-choice people honestly.

In my opinion, a fetus is a person when it doesn't require housing in my body to exist.

 

[Nithavela]

Well, let's keep it somewhat analogous with the following game and rewards/punishments

1) If there is a child in the box and you did not ram a sword through it, then you have to adopt it and take care of it.

2) If you ram through the box and it turned out to be a child, then you wouldn't be punished at all. You get to pull out a trash bag and throw it in the garbage. No legal punishment for it, but you would get to live your life knowing that you've killed a child.

3) If you ram through the box and there is no child in it, obviously, no punishment either.

Would you ram a sword through the box?

Jup.

You left out option 4, by the way. If there is no child in the box and I don't ram my sword through it, I'd STILL get a child to adopt and take care of.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

And how can I make it any clearer?

THERE IS NO ONE SINGLE POINT IN TIME WHEN IT STOPS BEING A CLUMP OF CELLS AND STARTS BEING A CHILD.

? So now there are clumps of cells posting, running for office, running corporations, working in factories, poisoning (willfully and willingly) the world/ public/ citizens, killing other clumps, driving on the highways,
flying airplanes/ jets as pilots and as passengers and as stewards,
working in sillycon valley, running the banking system, running the judicial system, sitting as judges in courtrooms, and juries,
and on, and on, and on......... ?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

.....
In my opinion, a fetus is a person when it doesn't require housing in my body to exist.

GOOD ! There's over a million pregnant women with such a person currently in-utero alive and well and thriving and growing rightly as God put the life in them ! Not one of those million plus require housing nor anything else of you - and all are persons, personally given LIFE BY YAHWEH THE CREATOR AND GIVER OF LIFE !

 

[PreviouslySeeking...]

GOOD ! There's over a million pregnant women with such a person currently in-utero alive and well and thriving and growing rightly as God put the life in them ! Not one of those million plus require housing nor anything else of you - and all are persons, personally given LIFE BY YAHWEH THE CREATOR AND GIVER OF LIFE !

Lol, I figure that is up to each individual pregnant person to decide for themselves. I don't make those kinds of decisions for other people.

If the Creator I believe in were to have a problem with that; they could let me know- but they haven't.

 

[devolved]

Jup.

You left out option 4, by the way. If there is no child in the box and I don't ram my sword through it, I'd STILL get a child to adopt and take care of.

Where would you get that child from if not the box ?

 

[devolved]

Personhood isn't really a question of value to many pro-choice people honestly.

In my opinion, a fetus is a person when it doesn't require housing in my body to exist.

So, a fetus is a squatter now ? I guess it's an upgrade from a parasite