My Kidney Challenge

devolved · Jul 22, 2018

Kylie said:
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.

I'm not going anywhere with this. I'm curious as to how far you would personally delay from indicating that a fetus is a person. It's a purely academic curiosity.

There's no "gotcha question" here... not that it would matter in context of the forum. It's not like I could persuade you of the opposite without deconstructing a wide variety of your other assumptions, which would take a series of longer conversations that would likely have to be face-to-face.

Let's face it, it's not an issue we'll resolve on this forum. We can merely try bouncing various arguments against each other in order to polish our own.

Whatever "perceived hostility" you may be gleaming from me is directed towards an argument, and not you personally. I'd have no doubt that if we met in person we could find other issues of overlapping agreement that would make for a much more pleasant conversation.

Kylie · Jul 22, 2018

devolved said:
I'm not going anywhere with this. I'm curious as to how far you would personally delay from indicating that a fetus is a person. It's a purely academic curiosity.

Are you intentionally ignoring the point I am trying to make, or are you genuinely incapable of understanding it?

devolved · Jul 23, 2018

Kylie said:
Are you intentionally ignoring the point I am trying to make, or are you genuinely incapable of understanding it?

I don't think I'm the one doing ignoring. I'm a bit puzzled as to why you think it's such a difficult concept to understand.

We live in a world where we place arbitrary boundaries on otherwise continual concepts. We have no problem doing that. All of us do that. You do that with plentiful other things. I can rattle off at least a dozen concepts off the top of my head where we place distinct boundaries on otherwise fluid concepts:

1) Birthdays / legal age boundaries / Time in general
2) Distinct colors
3) Seasonal/Climate changes
4) Personal Identities

I could go on and on... but you wouldn't argue about the nature of the color "white" for example, which is only "consistent" because our brains "white-balance". Likewise, we have no problem of describing "snowless winters" as winters. We designate a time-frame that we identify with certain "winter attributes".

Why would it be a problem for you in this case? Just because the progression is gradual, like all of the reality is, doesn't mean that we can't set boundaries, or recognize periods when these boundaries are more defined.

So, if I'm talking about a winter, then obviously the boundaries are about "coldest stretch" of weather in the region. Yes, the progression to that period is gradual, but it doesn't mean that we can't say that day X is not winter, given certain attributes of what we consider to be winter.

Kylie · Jul 23, 2018

devolved said:
I don't think I'm the one doing ignoring. I'm a bit puzzled as to why you think it's such a difficult concept to understand.

We live in a world where we place arbitrary boundaries on otherwise continual concepts. We have no problem doing that. All of us do that. You do that with plentiful other things. I can rattle off at least a dozen concepts off the top of my head where we place distinct boundaries on otherwise fluid concepts:

1) Birthdays / legal age boundaries / Time in general
2) Distinct colors
3) Seasonal/Climate changes
4) Personal Identities

I could go on and on... but you wouldn't argue about the nature of the color "white" for example, which is only "consistent" because our brains "white-balance". Likewise, we have no problem of describing "snowless winters" as winters. We designate a time-frame that we identify with certain "winter attributes".

Why would it be a problem for you in this case? Just because the progression is gradual, like all of the reality is, doesn't mean that we can't set boundaries, or recognize periods when these boundaries are more defined.

So, if I'm talking about a winter, then obviously the boundaries are about "coldest stretch" of weather in the region. Yes, the progression to that period is gradual, but it doesn't mean that we can't say that day X is not winter, given certain attributes of what we consider to be winter.

An arbitrary boundary is, by definition, an admission that there's not really much change from immediately before to immediately after. It is a purely Human construct applied simply because we don't like the lack of such clearly defined boundaries. And I don't see how it adds anything to this debate to say, "A fetus shall be considered to be a person X days, Y hours and Z minutes after conception." It seems to me that the only reason that you want me to agree to such a boundary is so you can argue that abortion is definitely wrong after that point. But as I have explained to you countless times, such a boundary does not exist.

I created a gradient in Photoshop. It is orange on the left and green on the right. It is 500 pixels across. Let's say we divide this up into columns, each column is 1 pixel wide. There are 500 columns that make up the image. We shall call the first column Column 1 and the last column Column 500.

At which column does it become green? Give me a specific column number.

devolved · Jul 23, 2018

Kylie said:
An arbitrary boundary is, by definition, an admission that there's not really much change from immediately before to immediately after. It is a purely Human construct applied simply because we don't like the lack of such clearly defined boundaries.

Sure. We are talking about human values though... and we are talking about our collective understanding of these. Obviously we all build out values on certain axiomatic frameworks that we exist in. Many boundaries are axiomatic (many are likewise physical), but it doesn't mean that these are arbitrary if we consider broader context of facts that we derive from observable reality.

Kylie said:
And I don't see how it adds anything to this debate to say, "A fetus shall be considered to be a person X days, Y hours and Z minutes after conception." It seems to me that the only reason that you want me to agree to such a boundary is so you can argue that abortion is definitely wrong after that point. But as I have explained to you countless times, such a boundary does not exist.

Well, to say that it doesn't exist is false, simply because the concept of "Person" is a boundary concept. You are merely refuse to identify it when it comes to context of anything other than "post-birth", because you see it as threatening to your argument. It's not really helpful in this discussion, because when you say "person" ... I have no idea what you are talking about.

Is 7 month old fetus a person? If not... then fine. That's what you think, but at least I understand your subjective boundary of "person" as a concept.

I'm not asking you as to when a person "becomes" as person. I'm asking you a to when you think we can "at the earliest" say that it's more like a person than it's not. (see below)

Kylie said:
I created a gradient in Photoshop. It is orange on the left and green on the right. It is 500 pixels across. Let's say we divide this up into columns, each column is 1 pixel wide. There are 500 columns that make up the image. We shall call the first column Column 1 and the last column Column 500.

At which column does it become green? Give me a specific column number.

Here's where you misunderstand the nature of boundaries, and the nature of my question.

Above is your gradient with two distinct and isolated "boundary" color points selected. While the color on the right is not "pure green", it's substantially-different from the orange on the left to be considered "orange". So, if you poll a 100 people to identify the colors, they would likely ID these as "orange" and "green", mainly because the one on the right is more like green and the one on the left is more like orange.

Yet, these are closer to each other than to "pure green" or "pure orange". Hence, your point is somewhat moot here. There's obviously a point at which you can say that the fetus is more like a "person" than it's not... just like with the two colors above.

nChrist · Jul 23, 2018

Kylie said:
There is a little girl, named Sally. She needs a kidney transplant or she will die.

Do I have the right to force you to give up one of your kidneys to save her life?

The answer is NO! - Not under any circumstances. What I do with my body parts before or after death is my business alone. You must find a voluntary donor.

devolved · Jul 23, 2018

Kylie said:
At which column does it become green? Give me a specific column number.

The second problem with an argument is the "calibration problem". My monitor may be off, or yours may be... and while we think we are discussing the same concept, the image on my monitor may look like this, because the hue is shifted, to let's say, accommodate for the lighting environment that I ussualy work in:

So, I could say that the green is anything from 0 - 400, while you think that it's absurd, because it's clearly orange to you.

Our axiomatic frameworks will color our perception.

For example, your axiomatic view that your bodily integrity is paramount, would different from other axioms that say that our collective survival as species is more important. There are different lens to examine these issues from.

Kylie · Jul 23, 2018

devolved said:
Sure. We are talking about human values though... and we are talking about our collective understanding of these. Obviously we all build out values on certain axiomatic frameworks that we exist in. Many boundaries are axiomatic (many are likewise physical), but it doesn't mean that these are arbitrary if we consider broader context of facts that we derive from observable reality.

Yeah, human values. So stop acting as though they exist in reality. There's a reason they are called "arbitrary."

Well, to say that it doesn't exist is false, simply because the concept of "Person" is a boundary concept. You are merely refuse to identify it when it comes to context of anything other than "post-birth", because you see it as threatening to your argument. It's not really helpful in this discussion, because when you say "person" ... I have no idea what you are talking about.

Is 7 month old fetus a person? If not... then fine. That's what you think, but at least I understand your subjective boundary of "person" as a concept.

I'm not asking you as to when a person "becomes" as person. I'm asking you a to when you think we can "at the earliest" say that it's more like a person than it's not. (see below)

As I have said before, there is no boundary.

And as for when it becomes more like a person than not a person... How are we to make that measure? How do you measure how much personness it has?

Here's where you misunderstand the nature of boundaries, and the nature of my question.

View attachment 235257
Above is your gradient with two distinct and isolated "boundary" color points selected. While the color on the right is not "pure green", it's substantially-different from the orange on the left to be considered "orange". So, if you poll a 100 people to identify the colors, they would likely ID these as "orange" and "green", mainly because the one on the right is more like green and the one on the left is more like orange.

Yet, these are closer to each other than to "pure green" or "pure orange". Hence, your point is somewhat moot here. There's obviously a point at which you can say that the fetus is more like a "person" than it's not... just like with the two colors above.

But once again, how do you make that measure with a fetus? How do you measure personness?

And you didn't do as I asked. Can you point to a column where the colours to the left are considered orange and those to the right are considered green?

And it seems to me that you are proving my point. The green you chose still has definite orangeness in it. So it is greener than the orange sample you chose, but it is not completely green. It gets more green and less orange as you go to the right. It never passes a point where it stops being orange and suddenly becomes green.

Likewise, a developing embryo never passes a point where it stops being a not-person and starts being a person. It simply becomes more and more person-like until it is a person.

Seriously, you seem to understand this concept when it comes to colours, so if you still don't understand it when it comes to pregnancy, I have to assume from this point that you are just trolling.

Kylie · Jul 23, 2018

nChrist said:
The answer is NO! - Not under any circumstances. What I do with my body parts before or after death is my business alone. You must find a voluntary donor.

Do you think a woman has the right to have an abortion if she chooses?

Kylie · Jul 23, 2018

devolved said:
The second problem with an argument is the "calibration problem". My monitor may be off, or yours may be... and while we think we are discussing the same concept, the image on my monitor may look like this, because the hue is shifted, to let's say, accommodate for the lighting environment that I ussualy work in:

View attachment 235258

So, I could say that the green is anything from 0 - 400, while you think that it's absurd, because it's clearly orange to you.

Our axiomatic frameworks will color our perception.

For example, your axiomatic view that your bodily integrity is paramount, would different from other axioms that say that our collective survival as species is more important. There are different lens to examine these issues from.

Quibbling over irrelevant details...

Yeah, I don't see that you have anything more of value in this discussion.

devolved · Jul 23, 2018

Kylie said:
Yeah, human values. So stop acting as though they exist in reality. There's a reason they are called "arbitrary."

As I have said before, there is no boundary.

And as for when it becomes more like a person than not a person... How are we to make that measure? How do you measure how much personness it has?

But once again, how do you make that measure with a fetus? How do you measure personness?

And you didn't do as I asked. Can you point to a column where the colours to the left are considered orange and those to the right are considered green?

And it seems to me that you are proving my point. The green you chose still has definite orangeness in it. So it is greener than the orange sample you chose, but it is not completely green. It gets more green and less orange as you go to the right. It never passes a point where it stops being orange and suddenly becomes green.

Likewise, a developing embryo never passes a point where it stops being a not-person and starts being a person. It simply becomes more and more person-like until it is a person.

Seriously, you seem to understand this concept when it comes to colours, so if you still don't understand it when it comes to pregnancy, I have to assume from this point that you are just trolling.

Sigh.. good luck with your thread.

devolved · Jul 23, 2018

Kylie said:
Quibbling over irrelevant details...

Yeah, I don't see that you have anything more of value in this discussion.

Again... I wish you best. I hope you've accomplished what you set out in this thread. I did not find your argument convincing.

It's just a continual practice of evasive maneuvers with failing to define specifics to unless it suits your purpose to do so.

Kylie · Jul 23, 2018

devolved said:
Again... I wish you best. I hope you've accomplished what you set out in this thread. I did not find your argument convincing.

It's just a continual practice of evasive maneuvers with failing to define specifics to unless it suits your purpose to do so.

That's what you didn't understand.

There ARE no specifics.

No specific point where it becomes a person.

devolved · Jul 23, 2018

Kylie said:
That's what you didn't understand.

There ARE no specifics.

No specific point where it becomes a person.

We'll agree to disagree then.

Kylie · Jul 23, 2018

devolved said:
We'll agree to disagree then.

Well, if you are claiming that there is a specific point at which it becomes a person (or that there is a specific point at which orange became green), you have been utterly incapable of showing it.

nChrist · Jul 24, 2018

Kylie said:
Do you think a woman has the right to have an abortion if she chooses?

No! - That involves the life of another person.

devolved · Jul 24, 2018

Kylie said:
Well, if you are claiming that there is a specific point at which it becomes a person (or that there is a specific point at which orange became green), you have been utterly incapable of showing it.

You completely (and I would now argue intentionally) missed the point. There is a time when we can tell that the gradient is clearly more green than orange. If you are failing to admit that, then you are not being honest here.

Again, I'll agree to disagree. I'll go back to arguing that unborn should have some basic rights to life, even if we follow through some technological means to maintain these in the future. You can go back to arguing that they can be chopped up to pieces and discarded, because you don't have to support their life with your body.

JustMeSee · Jul 24, 2018

Aryeh Jay said:
http://www.christianforums.com/threads/my-kidney-challenge.7933687/#post-69287796

last word.

Huh?

Jenniferdiana · Jul 24, 2018

eh i dont like this thread...

Aryeh Jay · Jul 24, 2018

JustMeSee said:
Huh?

In this hypothetical thread about organ theft, the kid hypothetically has a different blood type than mine; therefore if Kylie takes my kidney without my consent in order to save the kid’s life, Kylie will have murdered the poor child by transplanting a non-compatible kidney into it.

It is just a stupid hypothetical answer to a stupid immoral hypothetical question that I am truly surprised has gone so far as 600+ posts.

My Kidney Challenge

Newbie

Defeater of Illogic

Newbie

Defeater of Illogic

Newbie

AKA: Tom - Saved By Grace Through Faith

Newbie

Defeater of Illogic

Defeater of Illogic

Defeater of Illogic

Newbie

Newbie

Defeater of Illogic

Newbie

Defeater of Illogic

AKA: Tom - Saved By Grace Through Faith

Newbie

Contributor

Well-Known Member

Gone and hopefully forgotten.

Similar threads