S.J. That is one possible answer. But not the only one. For instance, your analogy breaks down because in one case a baby is allowed to die by inaction, but in the case of abortion positive action is taken to terminate the baby's life.
Or maybe that should be "negative action" :)
I'm a Mills utilitarian, philosophically. So in theory my answer to that is "and yet a person dies in either case". So at least be consistent.
But no, a person doesn't die in either case. Because a clump of cells that is invisible to the naked eye, unable to feel or reason, isn't a person.
And, yeah, I don't want to climb down the rabbit hole of "when does life start" either. There isn't even a universal definition of life, so we by definition can't answer that question.
But I do appreciate you listening to my point of view, and answering me as if I'm just someone who disagrees with you and not a Satanic baby killer. :)
Now you're getting into the argument of when it is a human being. It is only an indistinguishable lump of cells for a short period. It is only unable to feel for a short period.
I think we just talked past each other. Given how rare comments are on this site, that's improbable and kinda funny. :)
You got me thinking about the Satanic aspect, after all you do have a cat for your avatar :)
The really shocking thing here is that I'm actually a dog person. I just liked this picture.
Before anyone accuses me of hating cats, I like them, they're delicious.
. . . The only reason I can read that sentence without bridling is that it's Tom Baker saying it, so therefore it's being said with a smile.
drwho, why are you asking those "questions" of me and tuco when I have already explained how the fact/truth process works and tuco has agreed?
The answer to the only real question you asked is easily extrapolated from my previous description of the fact/truth process: "if someone holds a belief at the very highest level of conviction, that person experiences the belief as a truth, as a fact..."
Keep your eye on the fact/truth process. Watch it work its magic.
I much admire your tautology: In fact every "proof" eventually rests on unprovable assumptions.
If anyone is actually still caring about the game, that did not feel like an easy to me.
Gretchen, I agree - didn't feel easy to me either. But also, one can focus on more than the game in the chat. Seriously, this compare this to Babble - in Babble, we know everyone's aches & pains, their divorces, their deaths, also lots & lots of love there. Not sure what this is, if it's growing pains, or that there are more pros in Babble or what? (I'm pro in Babble, but not here, but I don't chat in Babble anymore & I will once in a great while here, whereas 10 years ago it was quite the opposite - go figure.)
A loner of five and three loners of four -- pretty hard to spot this time. 24.
Hi HK, feel free to babble on in babble or here with us!
ding, yup, agree, a tricky easy
It was a hard easy. There is a lot of chat here these days which has the potential to divide the sudoku players and as people are unlikely to be willing to discuss the issues rationally and consider alternative viewpoints, I have been trying not to get involved.