Philosophy Now Forum

Walker wrote: ↑Sun May 19, 2019 10:52 am Here’s a confusing article of pronoun chaos.

Nurse mistakes pregnant transgender man as obese. Then, the man births a stillborn baby
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/hea ... 692201002/

So in other words it was a pregnant woman who looked masculine. Got it.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sun May 19, 2019 11:46 am

Walker wrote: ↑Sun May 19, 2019 10:52 am Here’s a confusing article of pronoun chaos.

Nurse mistakes pregnant transgender man as obese. Then, the man births a stillborn baby
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/hea ... 692201002/

So in other words it was a pregnant woman who looked masculine. Got it.

The health-care professionals were confused, resulting in a "tragedy," as described by the link.

From the link:

“Several hours later, a doctor evaluated him and the hospital test confirmed pregnancy. An ultrasound showed unclear signs of fetal heart activity, and an exam revealed that part of the umbilical cord had slipped into the birth canal. Doctors prepared to do an emergency cesarean delivery, but in the operating room no fetal heartbeat was heard. Moments later, the man delivered a stillborn baby.”

Did you observe from the passage that detection of fetal heartbeat is the primary indicator of life?

Harbal wrote: ↑Sat May 18, 2019 9:54 pm But they are acting in accordance with what they believe to be God's wishes, and they think you are wrong. Now why would God make it perfectly clear to you what is right, but not make it clear to them?

If I were being wry, I'd say, "Well, you'll have to ask Him."

But it's actually a good question, and I'll try to do it some justice, if I can.

As a starting point, what we know for sure is that all answers cannot be simultaneously right...that is, not if they directly contradict. So if we take the three logical possibilities, they are:

1. The Atheist Position -- "There is/are no God/gods."
2. The Polytheist Position -- "There are many gods."
3. The Monotheist Position -- "There is one God."

Now, what we can see, without being at all partisan, is that any two of the three must be wrong. And we don't say that because we're picking one arbitrarily, but because if there is any kind of a god or Gods at all, Atheism cannot be true, and if there are many Gods, then Atheism is also untrue but so is Monotheism -- there is not just one God. And if there is only one God, then both Atheism and Polytheism are not true. But if Atheism is true then both Monotheism and Polytheism are not true, because no kind of God or gods actually exist...

So even without knowing which it is, we can safely say this: most of the world does not have the right answer. To see this point is not to be "intolerant" or anything: it's just to be capable of basic logic, as per Aristotle's Law of Non-Contradiction. It's a sort of dispassionate observation that rationally, everyone sort of has to accept, regardless of one's wishes to the contrary.

Now, why is that so: is that not your question? Two possible explanations, I would suggest: there is no God, but for some reason we can't really explain, people keep believing in things that don't exist. So evolution has messed us up somehow. Or possibly, there is a God (or gods), and for some reason He (or they) have allowed people the freedom to disbelieve in Him (or them).

Could having the freedom to disbelieve ever be, in any real sense, "good"? Especially if not believing in God has bad consequences (and we shouldn't be surprised if it does, really), is there every a sufficient "good" that would offset that possible "bad"? It would have to be something very, very good, of course; but is there any such thing?

I think there is. It's "relationship." The freedom to develop an authentic relationship with someone is premised on the freedom of both participants, isn't it? I mean, we do have names for situations in which one person forces relationship upon another, but I don't think that any of those names are complimentary. And the issue of force is a real problem when it comes to us relating to God: how is the Supreme Being, said to be capable of all things He could ever desire to do, going to establish an equitable, balanced, fair and two-equal-participant relationship with mere human beings? The power imbalance is so great that it's hard to imagine that our puny wills could ever be balanced off against such a huge force. Any non-doubtable manifestation of God, and we'd simply be overwhelmed: we'd have no option but to believe, and it would be abundantly clear to us that there was no choice at all but whatever He wanted...

But that's not a relationship. That's force. There's no choice.

So what could God do about this? It's pretty obvious that to make a relationship genuine -- that is, to give us the option of taking or leaving the relationship, whichever we wanted, God would have to severely restrict the showing of His full nature. Ideally, we ought to have a pretty even option of deciding we want a relationship with God, and that we don't: so He couldn't make the world so obviously God-filled that no human being could doubt His existence, but also, if He wanted relationship, He'd have to leave enough evidence in this world to make an offer of relationship plausible. So that's a tough balance to strike.

And a side effect of this is going to be that some people are going to reject the idea of a relationship with God. And that's really bad...morally bad, but also pragmatically bad for people. But it's the only way freedom is possible...freedom for human beings to decide their own loyalties, select their own activities, and most importantly, to love God freely...or not.

So we might then ask, is freedom, and is relationship, worth that price? If some people are going to choose badly, is it worth it for some to choose well?

I think that if there's no other way that an authentic and two-direction relationship can happen, then it is worthwhile. You may think not...I don't know. But I do think that a lot of people put a very high value on freedom; some have even died for it, or died to give it to others, even. And I do think it's true that there can be no relationship -- at least, not a genuine relationship of love, trust and mutuality -- unless both persons have freedom to define the relationship for themselves. They need to have an unforced choice.

All that being said, maybe the balance is exactly as it has to be. But I honestly have to end with what I said wryly at first: the ultimate answer is not in me, so we would have to ask God about that. I'm simply trying to think it through as best I can see it.

P.S. -- Alas, I must be off for a few days. (Some people say I'm "off" most of the time. )You have lots of time to consider a response if you think one is worthwhile. But I haven't disappeared permanently, so if you think there's a further note worth adding, I'll get to it then, okay?

Walker wrote: ↑Sun May 19, 2019 12:24 pm

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sun May 19, 2019 11:46 am

Walker wrote: ↑Sun May 19, 2019 10:52 am Here’s a confusing article of pronoun chaos.

Nurse mistakes pregnant transgender man as obese. Then, the man births a stillborn baby
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/hea ... 692201002/

So in other words it was a pregnant woman who looked masculine. Got it.

The health-care professionals were confused, resulting in a "tragedy," as described by the link.

From the link:

“Several hours later, a doctor evaluated him and the hospital test confirmed pregnancy. An ultrasound showed unclear signs of fetal heart activity, and an exam revealed that part of the umbilical cord had slipped into the birth canal. Doctors prepared to do an emergency cesarean delivery, but in the operating room no fetal heartbeat was heard. Moments later, the man delivered a stillborn baby.”

Did you observe from the passage that detection of fetal heartbeat is the primary indicator of life?

Witness the complete and utter stupidity of the anti-choice mob. When has anyone ever disputed that an embryo is alive?

The question has been raised as to when life begins.

Do you think that life begins when the heartbeat is detected, when the heartbeat begins but is undetected, when the baby is out of the mother, or at some other time, such as the moment of conception?

How do you manage to get around with the weight of that chip on your shoulder?

Walker wrote: ↑Sun May 19, 2019 11:37 pm The question has been raised as to when life begins.

Do you think that life begins when the heartbeat is detected, when the heartbeat begins but is undetected, when the baby is out of the mother, or at some other time, such as the moment of conception?

How do you manage to get around with the weight of that chip on your shoulder?

It's alive, we must save it!

Save the microbes! Save the slimy, brainless invertebrates! Save the small, mindless chordates!

All foetal stages, now ranked more important than adult women.


Look at the cow! It's in the paddock with its best friends and its babies. Hey pro-lifers, let's fuckin kill it and eat it. It's alive? So what? It's just a cow! But a foetus is an entire human - well, it might become an entire human.

We pro-lifers really care about human lives. Hey fucker, you don't wanna work? Go fuckin starve and die, cnt.

Hey pro-lifers, let's declare war on some people to get oil. Sure, millions of rag-heads will die (and thousands of good white boys) but they aren't human, are they?

Rapes and murders in prison? Don't commit the crime, fuckers and you won't be raped and murdered.

Universal heathcare? Now way, man! I'm pro-life but if you can't afford healthcare then you can go die, cnt.

Yeah, and bombing abortion clinics saves lives - where a few adult lives are sacrificed for the sake of what are microbes. Great idea - blastocycts are people too.

Early intervention programs for children at risk? Screw that! Get the state out of people's business! Let 'em die.

Change the gun laws so that children don't kill themselves? If you don't look after your guns, too bad! Let 'em die. Teach 'em a lesson.

Let all those bastards die - but don't hurt the blastocysts!

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sun May 19, 2019 11:58 pm

Walker wrote: ↑Sun May 19, 2019 11:37 pm The question has been raised as to when life begins.

Do you think that life begins when the heartbeat is detected, when the heartbeat begins but is undetected, when the baby is out of the mother, or at some other time, such as the moment of conception?

How do you manage to get around with the weight of that chip on your shoulder?

Reception:

The first digigraph indicates an unknown answer to the first question.

The second digigraph applied to the second question indicates, emphatically.

Greta wrote: ↑Mon May 20, 2019 12:09 am It's alive, we must save it!

Save the microbes! Save the slimy, brainless invertebrates! Save the small, mindless chordates!

All foetal stages, now ranked more important than adult women.


Look at the cow! It's in the paddock with its best friends and its babies. Hey pro-lifers, let's fuckin kill it and eat it. It's alive? So what? It's just a cow! But a foetus is an entire human - well, it might become an entire human.

We pro-lifers really care about human lives. Hey fucker, you don't wanna work? Go fuckin starve and die, cnt.

Hey pro-lifers, let's declare war on some people to get oil. Sure, millions of rag-heads will die (and thousands of good white boys) but they aren't human, are they?

Rapes and murders in prison? Don't commit the crime, fuckers and you won't be raped and murdered.

Universal heathcare? Now way, man! I'm pro-life but if you can't afford healthcare then you can go die, cnt.

Yeah, and bombing abortion clinics saves lives - where a few adult lives are sacrificed for the sake of what are microbes. Great idea - blastocycts are people too.

Early intervention programs for children at risk? Screw that! Get the state out of people's business! Let 'em die!

Let all those bastards die - but don't hurt the blastocysts!

So true, but unfortunately the brains of anti-choice kristians don't function in a normal way. When they read things like this all they see is:!#*)(@ aleijw oitoiuesl sointwus owlkejltjlskdlgowj eugoiwj elkrfowiur3eop2qlejfoiyasdbhf,knsdkfhiqwr;l;oasg8oqi3nlkn siy9q3rl oiaufp90jh32w oifu9we rq23wooig;werowiehrkw erwejltt2wtuwoaeit ;waetj waejtlkjwalet...............................

They actually believe that they are the sane and rational ones. Simple logic eludes them.

You are absolutely right of course. They claim that they believe that fertilised human eggs should be instilled with all the rights of fully functioning, independent human beings, yet they don't give a tinker's toss about human lives other than when they are inside another human being, from fertilised egg onwards. After that it's 'get outta my sight, and keep ya greedy commie paws offa my taxes (unless it's for the military to get ya t' kill lotsa commies and muzzies)'. It's all very peculiar.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun May 19, 2019 1:45 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat May 18, 2019 9:40 pm

A human must discover how to live and then choose to do it.

How does he do that, though?

The same way he learns and discovers everything else. He uses is mind.

How? What path does his mind follow, in order to show him "how to live," as you put it?

See what I mean? Water off a duck's back

More like: is it a person? When does it become a person? If it's a person, shouldn't it be accorded the same consideration as any other person?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon May 20, 2019 12:42 am

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun May 19, 2019 1:45 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat May 18, 2019 9:40 pm
How does he do that, though?

The same way he learns and discovers everything else. He uses is mind.

How? What path does his mind follow, in order to show him "how to live," as you put it?

In your case, this question is totally appropriate since you only know of ONE path. What other path can there be but the one you believe in.

True Veg, it's futile, which means the above is really just a catharsis. Oops, here's another ...

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon May 20, 2019 1:35 amMore like: is it a person? When does it become a person? If it's a person, shouldn't it be accorded the same consideration as any other person?

Most experts agree that around third trimester is about it, where the nervous system is developed enough to matter, even if the brain has not.


Henry, could you please list all the other people you are keen to save?

This is not like you. Normally you're more: "Too many people, let the fuckers die" and it doesn't matter if it's Muslims, the poor, the sick needing healthcare, kids being shot at school, and so on - your attitude to all is "let 'em die". etc.

Suddenly the blastocyst is something you desperately care about? Seriously? Do you think that forcing poverty-ridden black Alabama girls who have been raped to carry the rapist's baby to term is good for the community or society? If a poor black girl's been raped, what are the chances of her experiencing violence resulting in miscarriage while she is carrying the baby as demanded by the state?

It amazes me that YOU, of all people, would favour state interference into the most intimate part of people's lives. Suddenly My Freedom and Anti Government is into government totalitarian control over young women's reproduction.

Given that you always spit on the kinds of people who will now be born in the South's budding theocracies, it seems that what you want is more "scum" to spit upon.

When you show the slightest interest in anyone's welfare, others might show the slightest interest in your crocodile tears over embryo welfare.

Greta wrote: ↑Mon May 20, 2019 7:03 am True Veg, it's futile, which means the above is really just a catharsis. Oops, here's another ...

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon May 20, 2019 1:35 amMore like: is it a person? When does it become a person? If it's a person, shouldn't it be accorded the same consideration as any other person?

Most experts agree that around third trimester is about it, where the nervous system is developed enough to matter, even if the brain has not.


Henry, could you please list all the other people you are keen to save?

This is not like you. Normally you're more: "Too many people, let the fuckers die" and it doesn't matter if it's Muslims, the poor, the sick needing healthcare, kids being shot at school, and so on - your attitude to all is "let 'em die". etc.

Suddenly the blastocyst is something you desperately care about? Seriously? Do you think that forcing poverty-ridden black Alabama girls who have been raped to carry the rapist's baby to term is good for the community or society? If a poor black girl's been raped, what are the chances of her experiencing violence resulting in miscarriage while she is carrying the baby as demanded by the state?

It amazes me that YOU, of all people, would favour state interference into the most intimate part of people's lives. Suddenly My Freedom and Anti Government is into government totalitarian control over young women's reproduction.

Given that you always spit on the kinds of people who will now be born in the South's budding theocracies, it seems that what you want is more "scum" to spit upon.

When you show the slightest interest in anyone's welfare, others might show the slightest interest in your crocodile tears over embryo welfare.

Wow. You didn't just hit that nail on the head you sledge-hammered it. If Henry has any sense he will slither back into the hole he slithered out of. But as he has no sense then it will be same old same old.....