Talk-Polywell.org

CKay wrote:

Diogenes wrote:You choose to put a threshold where one is not clear, and to ignore a threshold where one is indeed very clear.

There is certainly a difference between an unfertilised egg and a zygote, but there is also qualitative difference between a zygote and a person (and any vagueness in defining a precise boundary does not invalidate the existence of qualitative difference).

Yes. You can't explain how one is different from the other, but take your word for it, there is a "qualitative difference." Repeat ad infinitum.

CKay wrote: You're threshold isn't 'better' than mine. /shrug

That your are unable to see it is only due to the limitations of your perception. It exists none the less. People not biased can see it easily. You live in a zeitgeist in which it is currently fashionable to believe such nonsense. You are the unwitting product of the culture surrounding you.

That your are unable to see it is only due to the limitations of your perception.

I might say the same to you about another subject. Fortunately for my perception the trends are in my favor.

Now explain again when an acorn becomes a tree.

Or are we going with acorns are trees?

Nuclear plants. Japan has shut them down due to collateral damage.

MSimon wrote:

That your are unable to see it is only due to the limitations of your perception.

I might say the same to you about another subject. Fortunately for my perception the trends are in my favor.

Now explain again when an acorn becomes a tree.

Or are we going with acorns are trees?

I would say the socialist arguement applies. An acorn has potential to be a tree, therefore it should be nurtured and treasured so it has the opportunity to be a tree. We should do this for all acorns as a moral imperative.

Or not.

Diogenes wrote:You can't explain how one is different from the other, but take your word for it, there is a "qualitative difference."

Who says? There are, to my mind, obvious qualitative differences between a zygote and a person; to borrow a word from earlier in the thread, sapience being a prime difference. Personality being another.

Diogenes wrote:That your are unable to see it is only due to the limitations of your perception. It exists none the less. People not biased can see it easily.

All you have to do is give up your preconceived notions, especially those that you have rationalized to suit you.

Pro-Choice White House Requires Registration of Unborn Children for Tours

The White House Visitors Office requires that an unborn child—still residing in utero—must be counted as a full human being when its parents register for a White House tour, according to documents obtained by the Washington Free Beacon.

Ckay might not find this amusing but I know I do.



Kinda defeats the narrative, doesn't it?

MSimon wrote:

That your are unable to see it is only due to the limitations of your perception.

I might say the same to you about another subject. Fortunately for my perception the trends are in my favor.

Now explain again when an acorn becomes a tree.

Or are we going with acorns are trees?

We are going with that "n space" perception problem again. The terms "trees" and "acorns" are fuzzy definitions to begin with.

In one sense, an acorn is a tree, and in another sense it is not. It depends on what aspect of it you wish to qualify for your definition of "tree."

Most certainly it is an organism of one continuous growth from beginning to end. Ask me when that starts.

Playing word games with English is not the same thing as having a logically valid point.

CKay wrote:

Diogenes wrote:You can't explain how one is different from the other, but take your word for it, there is a "qualitative difference."

Who says? There are, to my mind, obvious qualitative differences between a zygote and a person; to borrow a word from earlier in the thread, sapience being a prime difference. Personality being another.

And you define the onset of sapience and personality how? You just don't seem to get that the law defines SHARP lines in place of your fuzzy "feelings" based assumptions.

CKay wrote:

Diogenes wrote:That your are unable to see it is only due to the limitations of your perception. It exists none the less. People not biased can see it easily.

All you have to do is give up your preconceived notions, especially those that you have rationalized to suit you.

Yes, great advice. I couldn't have said it better myself.

Diogenes wrote:And you define the onset of sapience and personality how?

I'd look for evidence of differentiated areas of the brain associated with personality - the prefrontal cortex, for example.

You just don't seem to get that the law defines SHARP lines in place of your fuzzy "feelings" based assumptions.

You just don't seem to get that vagueness in identifying a boundary is not a reason to reject the separation of entities with qualitative difference.

ladajo wrote:I would say the socialist arguement applies. An acorn has potential to be a tree, therefore it should be nurtured and treasured so it has the opportunity to be a tree. We should do this for all acorns as a moral imperative.

Or not.

You almost had me there. LOL or not.

CKay wrote:

Diogenes wrote:And you define the onset of sapience and personality how?

I'd look for evidence of differentiated areas of the brain associated with personality - the prefrontal cortex, for example.

You just don't seem to get that the law defines SHARP lines in place of your fuzzy "feelings" based assumptions.

You just don't seem to get that vagueness in identifying a boundary is not a reason to reject the separation of entities with qualitative difference.

FWIW Jews set the boundary at 40 days. And even after that abortion is not considered a mortal offense. And it may even be sanctioned to preserve the mental health of the mother. I have read the case law. Blogged it even.

Now when you have conflicting traditions who decides? What about those who have no tradition?

But hell. I might like a job with the vagina police. The opportunities for corruption might prove very tasty. In some cases. Otherwise I could just take the money.

Think of the TSA in charge of vaginas. The results would be spectacular. Esp the evidence photos.

Almost had myself. But then I remembered that one acorn, nurtured and treasured, eventually can create thousands more acorns. Then I realized this would be self imposed support for an alien takeover. I immediately roasted and ate the acorn I had. While cooking it, I could have sworn it was calling out to me about affirmative action and ballot stuffing. For the record, acorns are not as good as chestnuts to roast and eat. Tomorrow, I think I will try a walnut.