My Kidney Challenge

[devolved]

Actually, you use these terms because they are emotional and incendiary and keep you from discussing what I've said. Look at your post - it is a waste of time and doesn't progress the conversation. Biologically, a fetus is not a parasite, which is why I didn't call it one. It doesn't have to be a parasite to cause the damage that it can. As for a squatter - that isn't even a biological term. This is simply a juvenile way for you to put unnecessary words iny mouth because you have nothing material to say.

You realize that it was my response to you describing pregnancy as a hostage situation, right?

 

[PreviouslySeeking...]

You realize that it was my response to you describing pregnancy as a hostage situation, right?

I'm still waiting for your point. I have answered all your questions.

 

[devolved]

I'm still waiting for your point. I have answered all your questions.

You have not made any good points for me to respond to. Once you make one... I will respond.

 

[PreviouslySeeking...]

You have not made any good points for me to respond to. Once you make one... I will respond.

You addressed me initially - don't bother doing so again.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Jesus was Jesus before Mary was even born. Not exactly a typical situation.

So true, but it wasn’t my example, I just finished it out. No, actually you just finished it out, I merely expanded upon it..... but that’s how it is with the creation of worlds and life from non-life, it’s never a typical situation.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Trip = human development

Destination = legal person

Abort the trip part way through = no human development

No human development = abort the destination = snuff out the legal person.

Don’t get me wrong, there are situations in which I would not look unfavorably against abortion.

But why equate the trip to human development if it’s not yet a legal human?

 

[Kylie]

The "difference" is merely a "mile marker" in a developmental stage. It may be arbitrary, but it's useful when we are having discussion about continuum.

That's why when you are asked "how old are you" .You are now counting up seconds in your response. We approximate and round up or down, because we live in a continuum of processes.

Why the great need to have one single instant when it stops being dark and becomes bright?

 

[Kylie]

You are describing small changes. A differences between a 1 week development and 3 month development are substantial. It's clear as night and day.

Let's put it this way. 6:30 am on a sunny Miami summer morning it'i clearly bright outside.

When is a person clearly a person in the infancy stage?

Irrelevant. I can tell you when they are clearly a viable fetus capable of surviving even if labour is induced, but that doesn't mean it is the first possible second at which this claim can be made.

You have this inordinate desire to establish that there must be a single point in time when it starts being a person instead of what it was before, when this simply isn't the case. I have tried to explain this to you many times now and you seem completely incapable of grasping this concept.

 

[Kylie]

What you seem to be misunderstanding is that because something is gradual it doesn't mean that there are no time or space boundaries that can be clearly identified.

A trip from point A to point B is gradual... It's likewise not a lightswitch. But you know when you have arrived. Gradual events don't necessitate lack of clear boundaries.

Why do you assume that ALL gradual changes must have clear discrete boundaries?

 

[Kylie]

When does the growing embryo develop a circulatory system?

To me that would settle the issue as the Bible clearly states that the life is in the blood. This is why it prohibits the eating of blood of any kind or shedding human blood.

The Bible also speaks a lot about the breath of life. Does this mean that a baby isn't alive until it is breathing?

 

[devolved]

Why the great need to have one single instant when it stops being dark and becomes bright?

Well, you can ask any film producer about the golden hour... It's essentially "free lighting" for film. Obviously there are energy implications. All of that is besides the point. We are obviously not discussing sunsets.

 

[Kylie]

Well, you can ask any film producer about the golden hour... It's essentially "free lighting" for film. Obviously there are energy implications. All of that is besides the point. We are obviously not discussing sunsets.

My mother is a photographer, I know quite a bit about the Golden Hour. How there is this glorious warm light coming from a low angle...

But the thing is, that light doesn't come and go like a lightswitch being turned on and then off. It goes from bad light to slightly better light to a little bit better and so on, the light gradually becoming nicer and nicer until it reaches maximum niceness at which point it starts getting worse and worse and darker and darker until that light is completely gone.

Which is EXACTLY the point I have been trying to make.

 

[devolved]

Which is EXACTLY the point I have been trying to make.

Well, not really, because there's a clear point at which the light is gone, and there's a clear point at which the light is "bright-enough" for whatever you are trying to do. There's a reason why we sit and wait with our lightmeters as DPs, and we adjust the exposure before rolling the camera.

If we accurately project your point on the context of the "golden hour" it would be that "golden hour" isn't bright.

Again, you are refusing to put a clear boundaries, and it's rather buffing in this context. You would consider a newborn to be a person, right?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

You would consider a newborn to be a person, right?

You can, as I’ve pointed out, believe that a newborn is absolutely a person and a first trimester fetus absolutely isn’t, without defining when the transition occurs.

 

[Kylie]

Well, not really, because there's a clear point at which the light is gone, and there's a clear point at which the light is "bright-enough" for whatever you are trying to do. There's a reason why we sit and wait with our lightmeters as DPs, and we adjust the exposure before rolling the camera.

Yes, there is a clear point at which the light is gone, but the light is still going to be pretty bad one second prior to that point isn't it?

If we accurately project your point on the context of the "golden hour" it would be that "golden hour" isn't bright.

I think you know what I mean, please don't quibble about that kind of thing.

Again, you are refusing to put a clear boundaries, and it's rather buffing in this context. You would consider a newborn to be a person, right?

Yes I would.

Now, no doubt, you are going to ask me if it is still a person the day before it is born, to which I will say yes. Then you will ask what about a week before, and then a week before that, and a week before that, and so on ad nauseum until we get to the point where mum and dad are in bed together doing what they need to do in order to get things started.

And my response will be that it starts out as a fertilized cell and gradually becomes more and more person-like while at the same time becoming less and less fertilized-cell-like.

This is the same point I have been trying to make for several days now, and you seem to be getting upset that I am trying to make it rather than accept eh position that you apparently have that there is a single point at which it changes and becomes a person.

 

[devolved]

Now, no doubt, you are going to ask me if it is still a person the day before it is born, to which I will say yes. Then you will ask what about a week before, and then a week before that, and a week before that, and so on ad nauseum until we get to the point where mum and dad are in bed together doing what they need to do in order to get things started.

No, what I'm asking you is the "earliest" point in human development that you would personally and subjectively consider child to be a person.

You obviously believe that a newborn is a person. You obviously believe that a newborn a week prior is a person. If we don't count in weeks, then when would you still consider it to be a person?

I'm not here to try to force you to say what you disagree with, I'm actually interested where your boundaries are, because we can carry this discussion forward. Keep in mind that recognizing that someone is a person doesn't naturally negate your argument that you "shouldn't forcefully keep that person alive using your body".

 

[Justatruthseeker]

The Bible also speaks a lot about the breath of life. Does this mean that a baby isn't alive until it is breathing?

Already clarified and answered that question.

https://www.christianforums.com/threads/my-kidney-challenge.7933687/page-29#post-72969223

https://www.christianforums.com/threads/my-kidney-challenge.7933687/page-29#post-72969218

https://www.christianforums.com/threads/my-kidney-challenge.7933687/page-30#post-72970994

But really its your confusion of how the ancient Hebrews used the word we think of as breath. To them it meant the "POWER" behind the breath or the wind, not the breath or the wind itself as we think of it. It was God's power that gave life to man, unless of course you think God actually needs to breathe?

His power took an inanimate lump of clay and transformed it into living flesh.

The trip starts the second you depart point A, not a quarter of the way, not halfway through, not 3/4, not when you reach point B.

 

[Kylie]

No, what I'm asking you is the "earliest" point in human development that you would personally and subjectively consider child to be a person.

You obviously believe that a newborn is a person. You obviously believe that a newborn a week prior is a person. If we don't count in weeks, then when would you still consider it to be a person?

I'm not here to try to force you to say what you disagree with, I'm actually interested where your boundaries are, because we can carry this discussion forward. Keep in mind that recognizing that someone is a person doesn't naturally negate your argument that you "shouldn't forcefully keep that person alive using your body".

How many times do I have to explain it to you?

Let's say I agree with you that there is some "earliest point" at which I consider it to be a human. Does that mean that I don't consider it Human five minutes prior to that time? Of course not.

There is no clear cut boundary.

You seem incapable of realising this point.

 

[devolved]

How many times do I have to explain it to you?

Let's say I agree with you that there is some "earliest point" at which I consider it to be a human. Does that mean that I don't consider it Human five minutes prior to that time? Of course not.

There is no clear cut boundary.

You seem incapable of realising this point.

I'm not asking you for a boundary. 8 am is clearly bright where I live, and it's not a golden hour or a boundary.

You are fine with saying that a newborn is a person... Why are you so afraid to say that a 7 month old is a person? That's the part that I find extremely bizzare.

 

[Kylie]

I'm not asking you for a boundary. 8 am is clearly bright where I live, and it's not a golden hour or a boundary.

You are fine with saying that a newborn is a person... Why are you so afraid to say that a 7 month old is a person? That's the part that I find extremely bizzare.

I fail to see where you could be going with this line of questioning other than getting me to say that I see a boundary.

And don't lie to me. If you are asking me for the earliest point at which I would consider it a person, then you are indeed asking me for a boundary.